Google Groups no longer supports new Usenet posts or subscriptions. Historical content remains viewable.
Dismiss

Announcement -- New Creation Science FAQ

52 views
Skip to first unread message

Riley M. Sinder

unread,
Mar 12, 1997, 3:00:00 AM3/12/97
to

-----------------------------------


>"These creation events are no longer occuring. As such, they are not
>observable or repeatable."


fwa...@chi1.uncfsu.edu writes:

>If a tree falls in the forest, it is not
>necessary for anyone to observe that event for us to know that it fell.
>Nor is it necessary for the tree to fall repeatedly. The fact that it is
>lying on the ground, roots exposed and a hole where the roots had been is
>generally sufficient evidence for any reasonably sighted, intelligent
>observer to be reasonably sure that it fell.

=====================================

If during all the centuries of observing trees, NO ONE had
witnessed a tree falling, then only religious zealots
would ban the teaching that trees do only whatever it is
that trees can be observed repeatably to do.

You would have been as sure in 1890 that, though no one
had witnessed it, the ether drift would be clearly measurable
by any reasonably sighted, intelligent observer with a
reasonably accurate interferometer.

Now what was your justification for setting this legal ban
on the teaching of your opposition?

--
Riley M. Sinder red...@netcom.com


James S. Lovejoy

unread,
Mar 12, 1997, 3:00:00 AM3/12/97
to

Riley M. Sinder wrote:
>
> --snip--

> Now what was your justification for setting this legal ban
> on the teaching of your opposition?
>

I know you won't get it, but for any listening in, again what is your
evidence of this supposed ban? Again, not _requiring_ the taxpayers
to _pay_ to have this taught in _public_ schools is NOT the same
as banning.

The evidence as presented only shows the creationist side using state
power to enforce their views:

1. State Laws *have* banned the teaching of evolution.
2. State Laws *have* required that creationism be taught.

There is AFAIK no state law requiring the teaching of evolution.
There is AFAIK no state law banning the teaching of creationism.

> --
> Riley M. Sinder red...@netcom.com

--
Creation 'science' fundamentalism: recruiting arm of Atheists of America

Riley M. Sinder

unread,
Mar 13, 1997, 3:00:00 AM3/13/97
to

------------------------------------------

[[In North America, only two banning religions have survived
the epidemic of free speech.

One surviving religion is evolutionism. The other is
creationism.]]


>>Now what was your justification for setting this legal ban
>>on the teaching of your opposition?


dwe...@ramtops.demon.co.uk (Douglas Weller) writes:

>This is like objecting to someone
>who wants to teach children that 1 + 1 = 3.


Well, evolutionism is MUCH less than 1 + 1 = 3.

Anyone can count their three fingers to see that
1 + 1 < 3.

Evolutionism is quite different--because the number of
apes that can be demonstrated to evolve from any Single-celled
creature is much less than even ONE finger's-worth.


>Why should anyone accept teaching
>crackpot maths,


The interesting empirical difference is that NO civilized
country has made a legal ban on the teaching of crackpot--
or any OTHER--maths.


>cacophonous music,


Are you suggesting that someone should ban
the PUNKS?


>or magic
>instead of science.


Apparently evolutionism is the ONLY "science" that has
such weak evidence that it has had to claim protection
under the United States Constitution as a religion in
order to survive.

Creationism TRIED to claim protection as a religion under the
Constitution--but could not make the grade.

Riley M. Sinder

unread,
Mar 13, 1997, 3:00:00 AM3/13/97
to

-----------------------------------------------


>> Now what was your justification for setting this legal ban
>> on the teaching of your opposition?


"James S. Lovejoy" <ji...@ix.netcom.com> writes:

>I know you won't get it, but for anyone listening in, again what is your


>evidence of this supposed ban? Again, not _requiring_ the taxpayers
>to _pay_ to have this taught in _public_ schools is NOT the same
>as banning.

==========================================

Perhaps then you should explain

http://cns-web.bu.edu/pub/dorman/edwards_v_aguillard.html


"The District Court therefore held that
the Creationism Act violated the Establishment
Clause either because it prohibited the
teaching of evolution or because it required the teaching of
creation science with the purpose of
advancing a particular religious doctrine."

Why would the evolutionists have to ask protection
from advancing armies?

Riley M. Sinder

unread,
Mar 13, 1997, 3:00:00 AM3/13/97
to

---------------------------

>>If you don't know the difference
>>between a story, and science, maybe you should read the faq.


Micheal (Chris) Keane wrote:

>There is no such thing as creation science.

-----

>>>Huh? Government teaching religion as if it were science is not
>>>establishment of religion? Nice theory.

-----

>Complete nonsense. Why are *only* Christian fundamentalists creationists?

===================================

Not only are the Christian fundamentalists creationists,
the EVOLUTIONIST fundamentalists are creationists as well.

The evolutionists just call their event by a Latin name
and adhere to a different entity as the ONE infallible source
of evidence.

Both the evolutionist and creationist fundamentalists avoid
the simple truism that life is merely another
physical state of chemicals.

Riley M. Sinder

unread,
Mar 13, 1997, 3:00:00 AM3/13/97
to

------------------------------

>>"The District Court therefore held that
>>the Creationism Act violated the Establishment
>>Clause either because it prohibited the
>>teaching of evolution or because it required the teaching of
>>creation science with the purpose of
>>advancing a particular religious doctrine."

>>Why would the evolutionists have to ask protection

>>from the advancement of religion?


ent...@eskimo.com (Enturbulated) writes:

>Because the creationism act violated the law.

>What else do you suggest ?

========================

Purpose to promote a religion would be irrelevant to any person that
is neutral to religion.

Enturbulated

unread,
Mar 13, 1997, 3:00:00 AM3/13/97
to

In <rednbluE...@netcom.com>, red...@netcom.com (Riley M. Sinder) writes:

>"The District Court therefore held that
>the Creationism Act violated the Establishment
>Clause either because it prohibited the
>teaching of evolution or because it required the teaching of
>creation science with the purpose of
>advancing a particular religious doctrine."
>
>Why would the evolutionists have to ask protection

>from advancing armies?

Because the creationism act violated the law.

What else do you suggest ?

Pim


---Annoy a fool, ask him to back up his beliefs with facts---
"An enemy may be deprived of property, lied to, tricked, sued
or destroyed by any means" L Ron Hubbard--Fair Game Policy,

Brian F. King

unread,
Mar 13, 1997, 3:00:00 AM3/13/97
to

Riley M. Sinder wrote:
>
> Purpose to promote a religion would be irrelevant to any person that
> is neutral to religion.

Why do you assume 'neutrality' is the same as 'non-interference'?

A person neutral to religion might require equal teachings of all
religions, no?
Therfore, intent to promote a specific religion would not be acceptable.

Kind of like a referee in a football game;
just because he is 'neutral' doesn't mean he doesn't take part...

Brian F. King

unread,
Mar 13, 1997, 3:00:00 AM3/13/97
to

Riley M. Sinder wrote:
>
> The interesting empirical difference is that NO civilized
> country has made a legal ban on the teaching of crackpot--
> or any OTHER--maths.

Perhaps that is because there is no one stupid enough to
TRY to teach it as mathematics...

Riley M. Sinder

unread,
Mar 13, 1997, 3:00:00 AM3/13/97
to

-----------------------------------------

[[The United States Supreme Court has promoted a religion
or some other superstition in attempting to
separate the churches from the states.]]


>> Purpose to promote a religion would be irrelevant to any person that
>> is neutral to religion.


"Brian F. King" <bri...@ncinter.net> writes:

>Why do you assume 'neutrality' is the same as 'non-interference'?


Specific instances are sometimes easier than the abstractions.

For example, any ban on the speech that had a purpose of "promoting
a witchcraft" would be establishing a view that there is
"something to witchcraft."

If one believes that there is nothing to witchcraft,
only then could one be neutral
to the "witchcraft" and judge the speech merely for natural--
not supernatural--qualities.

>A person neutral to religion might require equal teachings of all
>religions, no?


Hardly. If one is neutral to "religion," then one would
vote AGAINST teaching ANY "religion" because there are POSITIVE
things like math plus signs, cations, and rising revenues
that are much more useful learnings.

>Therefore, intent to promote a specific religion would not be acceptable.


Speech with the intent to promote a "witchcraft" is pure fantasy and should
be judged as pure fantasy--like whether it increases box office
receipts or whether it is delivered in a manner that demonstrates
a clear and present danger of imminent lawlessness.

>Kind of like a referee in a football game;
>just because he is 'neutral' doesn't mean he doesn't take part...


What would you say of a referee that makes calls based
on whether the four-letter word was made with the intent
to promote a "witchcraft"?

Making such calls would not say much empirically about the
delivery of the four-letter word. But looking at the
pattern in which a referee made such calls
would tell you MUCH about the superstitions
of the referee.

Riley M. Sinder

unread,
Mar 13, 1997, 3:00:00 AM3/13/97
to

--------------------------------

[[Why are SOME superstitions deemed to be so powerful
that they must be banned from being taught as science?]]


>> The interesting empirical difference is that NO civilized
>> country has made a legal ban on the teaching of crackpot--
>> or any OTHER--maths.

"Brian F. King" <bri...@ncinter.net> writes:

>Perhaps that is because there is no one stupid enough to
>TRY to teach it as mathematics...

========================

Evolutionism is in a very different empirical position from
mathematics.

Mathematics as an intellectual pursuit has demonstrated
extreme tolerance for alternative axioms. For example Lobachevski
had no problems of a legal banning when he
taught that there are an infinite
number of parallel lines that can be drawn through any
point external to a line.

Everybody sees that there is only ONE. Try THAT one on paper.

But evolutionism has a very different kind of problem.

For evolutionism hopes to BAN the science-class teaching that
is counter to the principal axiom of the evolutionists'
religion that all life descended from the same
Scout troop of Single-celled creatures.

Arturo Magidin

unread,
Mar 13, 1997, 3:00:00 AM3/13/97
to

In article <rednbluE...@netcom.com>,

Riley M. Sinder <red...@netcom.com> wrote:
>Evolutionism is in a very different empirical position from
>mathematics.
>
>Mathematics as an intellectual pursuit has demonstrated
>extreme tolerance for alternative axioms. For example Lobachevski
>had no problems of a legal banning when he
>taught that there are an infinite
>number of parallel lines that can be drawn through any
>point external to a line.


You have no idea of the history of mathematics, do you? These sort of
progress came by at great cost and against great opposition.

Read Decartes' papers on Analytic Geometry, to hear him talking about
'imaginary quantities' (he meant negative numbers). What we now call
imaginary numbers were hotly contested until Gauss game them an
interpretation people could live with (points in the plane), and even
then they resisted. Gauss didn't publish his results on non-Euclidian
geometry because of the expected backlash, and Lobachevski encountered
quite a bit of resistance to his postulates. It wasn't until Hilbert
that the idea of an axiomatic system as the "rules of the game" instead
of the "rules describing the universe" was accepted. For other examples,
look at Brower (sp?) and how he renounced his early results on
Topology because they used the Axiom of Choice, and the constant
attempt of many mathematicians to avoid Choice when they can.

In short, learn some history of Math before making judgements like
the incorrect one expressed above.

Before I get quoted out of context though, you will notice that all of
these progresses came to be accepted despite the original opposition
to them. Why? Simple: because they were useful, because they worked.
Science has an excellent track record of correcting itself, and of
accepting the off-beat when the evidence is in favor.

>Everybody sees that there is only ONE. Try THAT one on paper.

Again, you betray ignorance. It depends on what you call a "line"
and what you call a "point", you see. I can model hyperbolic
geometry on paper.

In any case, what you think of as a parallel line you are drawing on paper
really isn't. If you truly extended them indefinitely, they would either
meet (if they are true lines, ie geodesics), or they aren't really lines.

Guess common sense gets kicked in the teeth again.

>But evolutionism has a very different kind of problem.
>
>For evolutionism hopes to BAN the science-class teaching that
>is counter to the principal axiom of the evolutionists'
>religion that all life descended from the same
>Scout troop of Single-celled creatures.

Cite a single law or ->BAN<- that attempts to allow ->only<- evolution.
All the court cases I am familiar with are about laws that either
attempt to ban ->evolution<-, or make the teaching of evolution conditional
on the teaching of something else.

Please, court cases and citations, not hearsay.

======================================================================
"It's not denial. I'm just very selective about
what I accept as reality."
--- Calvin ("Calvin and Hobbes")
======================================================================

Arturo Magidin
mag...@uclink.berkeley.edu
mag...@math.berkeley.edu

Riley M. Sinder

unread,
Mar 14, 1997, 3:00:00 AM3/14/97
to

--------------------------------

[[When was the last time you saw any "science" other
than evolutionism or creationism accomplish certainty
by the banning of speech rather than by empirical
proofs?]]

>>Evolutionism is in a very different empirical position from
>>mathematics.

>>Mathematics as an intellectual pursuit has demonstrated
>>extreme tolerance for alternative axioms. For example Lobachevski
>>had no problems of a legal banning when he
>>taught that there are an infinite
>>number of parallel lines that can be drawn through any
>>point external to a line.


mag...@raiders.berkeley.edu (Arturo Magidin) writes:

>What we now call
>imaginary numbers were hotly contested until Gauss gave them an


>interpretation people could live with (points in the plane), and even
>then they resisted. Gauss didn't publish his results on non-Euclidian
>geometry because of the expected backlash, and Lobachevski encountered
>quite a bit of resistance to his postulates.

No neutral observer would expect the evolutionists to be
polite.

And there is no injustice if a debate is merely
hotly contested. Even impoliteness and resistance could
comport with any neutral standard of free speech.

What is unacceptable is a legal banning of a teaching on the
basis of some nonobjective and superstitious label like "religion."


mag...@raiders.berkeley.edu (Arturo Magidin) writes:

>All the court cases I am familiar with are about laws that either
>attempt to ban ->evolution<-,


To any neutral observer the banning is reprehensible of ANY teaching that
the majority elects to teach. It would not matter whether
the majority would elect to teach republicanism, evolutionism,
or creationism.

Whatever the teaching that the majority elects should not be
banned--UNLESS you have objective and empirical evidence that
the power of some certain sequence of words surpasses ordinary
understanding to shatter glass, cause wine to turn to water,
or cause some other repeatable mayhem.

>or make the teaching of evolution conditional
>on the teaching of something else.


Perhaps you have some empirical evidence that "making
the teaching of one subject conditional on the teaching
of another" causes some harm that no one has detected yet.

"Making one thing conditional on another" seems to be
a normal way to do things in legislatures. Perhaps
you object to representative democracy. But you
have no rational reason for making a special exception
about "religion"--whatever supernatural domain
you think THAT is.

Brian F. King

unread,
Mar 14, 1997, 3:00:00 AM3/14/97
to

Riley M. Sinder wrote:
>
> "Brian F. King" <bri...@ncinter.net> writes:
>
> >Why do you assume 'neutrality' is the same as 'non-interference'?
>
> Specific instances are sometimes easier than the abstractions.
>
> For example, any ban on the speech that had a purpose of "promoting
> a witchcraft" would be establishing a view that there is
> "something to witchcraft."

Oh, no. Once again, back to the silly argument.

> If one believes that there is nothing to witchcraft,
> only then could one be neutral
> to the "witchcraft" and judge the speech merely for natural--
> not supernatural--qualities.

Do you assume the unbiased observer is completely stupid, or what?

Empirical evidence SHOWS that different words cause different reactions
in biased people. Hitler's speeches, based purely on physics, are not
significantly different than those of the Pope's. However, any unbiased
observer would NOT say the two are qualitatively the same.

> >A person neutral to religion might require equal teachings of all
> >religions, no?
>
> Hardly. If one is neutral to "religion," then one would
> vote AGAINST teaching ANY "religion" because there are POSITIVE
> things like math plus signs, cations, and rising revenues
> that are much more useful learnings.

So this means the neutral observer would do exactly what the writers of
the Consitution did? And if the Supreme court were unbiased it would
follow
those instructions?

Well then what the heck are you arguing about?!?!?!?!?!?

> >Therefore, intent to promote a specific religion would not be acceptable.
>
> Speech with the intent to promote a "witchcraft" is pure fantasy and should
> be judged as pure fantasy--like whether it increases box office
> receipts or whether it is delivered in a manner that demonstrates
> a clear and present danger of imminent lawlessness.

But ANY 'intention of speech', is "pure fantasy",
how can it EVER 'promote imminent lawlessness'?

You are speaking with a forked tongue.



>>Kind of like a referee in a football game;
>>just because he is 'neutral' doesn't mean he doesn't take part...
> What would you say of a referee that makes calls based
> on whether the four-letter word was made with the intent
> to promote a "witchcraft"?

I'd say he doesn't belong in a footbal game, because as far as I am
aware,
the rules say nothing about the promotion of witchcraft on-field.

Except, perhaps with regard to 'delay of game'...



> Making such calls would not say much empirically about the
> delivery of the four-letter word. But looking at the
> pattern in which a referee made such calls
> would tell you MUCH about the superstitions
> of the referee.

Or lack of superstitions.

Brian F. King

unread,
Mar 14, 1997, 3:00:00 AM3/14/97
to

Riley M. Sinder wrote:
>
> What is unacceptable is a legal banning of a teaching on the
> basis of some nonobjective and superstitious label like "religion."

Would it be fine with you if it was an objective ban?

> Whatever the teaching that the majority elects should not be
> banned--UNLESS you have objective and empirical evidence that
> the power of some certain sequence of words surpasses ordinary
> understanding to shatter glass, cause wine to turn to water,
> or cause some other repeatable mayhem.

How exactly does one acquire objective and empirical evidence for
'repeatable mayhem'?

> But you have no rational reason for making a special exception
> about "religion"--whatever supernatural domain
> you think THAT is.

Why of course there is.
You just stated it.

Why should "religion" be banned from the science class?
Because it is "whatever supernatural domain you think THAT is".
Guess what; science has no place for "THAT".

Brian F. King

unread,
Mar 14, 1997, 3:00:00 AM3/14/97
to

Riley M. Sinder wrote:
>
> --------------------------------
>
> [[Why are SOME superstitions deemed to be so powerful
> that they must be banned from being taught as science?]]

Because evidence shows that they would be taught INSTEAD of science,
given the opportunity.

Now, as to why the superstitions ARE so powerful; I have no idea.

> >> The interesting empirical difference is that NO civilized
> >> country has made a legal ban on the teaching of crackpot--
> >> or any OTHER--maths.
>

> "Brian F. King" <bri...@ncinter.net> writes:
>

> >Perhaps that is because there is no one stupid enough to
> >TRY to teach it as mathematics...
>
> ========================
>

> Evolutionism is in a very different empirical position from
> mathematics.

Irrelevant, isn't it?

IF someone were actually to TRY to teach that 1 + 1 = 4, do you
deny that it would NOT be permitted in the mathematics classroom?

ArachnomaniA

unread,
Mar 14, 1997, 3:00:00 AM3/14/97
to

In talk.origins Riley M. Sinder <red...@netcom.com> wrote:
> --------------------------------

> For evolutionism hopes to BAN the science-class teaching that
> is counter to the principal axiom of the evolutionists'
> religion that all life descended from the same
> Scout troop of Single-celled creatures.

Talking with this guy sure has its limits. Anyway...

Evolutionists have never banned anything. Furthermore, the
supreme court has never banned science from a science
class room. Any scientific theory is free to challenge
and ultimately defeat the current theory of evolution at
any time. There is simply no competition.
Jeff

My Cross

unread,
Mar 14, 1997, 3:00:00 AM3/14/97
to

"James S. Lovejoy" <ji...@ix.netcom.com> purported:

>Riley M. Sinder wrote:
>>
>> --snip--

>> Now what was your justification for setting this legal ban
>> on the teaching of your opposition?
>>

>I know you won't get it, but for any listening in, again what is your


>evidence of this supposed ban? Again, not _requiring_ the taxpayers
>to _pay_ to have this taught in _public_ schools is NOT the same
>as banning.


Just for your information - it is well known on the net that Riley
Sinder (Cinder-rella) is a 'bot. It's a computer program designed to
spew nonsense and keep a debate going, but going nowhere.

Don't bother.


>The evidence as presented only shows the creationist side using state
>power to enforce their views:

> 1. State Laws *have* banned the teaching of evolution.
> 2. State Laws *have* required that creationism be taught.

>There is AFAIK no state law requiring the teaching of evolution.
>There is AFAIK no state law banning the teaching of creationism.

>> --
>> Riley M. Sinder red...@netcom.com

>--

Riley M. Sinder

unread,
Mar 15, 1997, 3:00:00 AM3/15/97
to

--------------------------------

[[The evolutionists insist that "religious speech" should be
banned from science class because "religious speech" has
some quality distinguishing it from ordinary speech.]]

>> You have no rational reason for making a special exception


>> about "religion"--whatever supernatural domain
>> you think THAT is.

"Brian F. King" <bri...@ncinter.net> writes:

>Why of course there is.
>You just stated it.

>Why should "religion" be banned from the science class?
>Because it is "whatever supernatural domain you think THAT is".
>Guess what; science has no place for "THAT".

=========================================

Nevertheless, the evolutionists' obsession with "THAT"
generates many lawsuits to eliminate "THAT" from science class.

But it is obvious to any neutral observer that NO
speech has even a tinge of "THAT"--for there is no
"THAT" such that the supernatural domain of "THAT"
is greater than any part of zero.

Hence, the evolutionists' fear of "THAT" is only a
paranoid superstition.

Riley M. Sinder

unread,
Mar 15, 1997, 3:00:00 AM3/15/97
to

--------------------------------------


spi...@MCS.COM (ArachnomaniA) writes:

>Evolutionists have never banned anything.


That may or may not be a true statement depending
on what data you encounter.

SOMEBODY sure banned the teaching of creationism
from science curriculums.

http://cns-web.bu.edu/pub/dorman/edwards_v_aguillard.html


"But because the primary purpose of the
Creationism Act is to endorse a
particular religious doctrine, the
Act furthers religion in violation of
the Establishment Clause (15)."

So the only test left is to see if the evolutionists
did it.

Evidently those who sued to stop the teaching of creationism
did not object to the teaching of evolutionism because
evolutionism was not opposed in the suit.

Did you think that the CREATIONISTS sued to ban the
teaching of creationism?

Riley M. Sinder

unread,
Mar 15, 1997, 3:00:00 AM3/15/97
to

--------------------------------

[[What would be a NON-superstitious basis for banning
creationism speech from science classes?

One non-superstitious basis for a ban would be to
ban all nonsense. But unfortunately the evolutionists
sue to ban ONLY the speech that they believe in
their heart-of-hearts to have supernatural powers
beyond the mere utterance of sound sequences.]]


>> If one believes that there is nothing to witchcraft,
>> only then could one be neutral
>> to the "witchcraft" and judge the speech merely for natural--
>> not supernatural--qualities.

"Brian F. King" <bri...@ncinter.net> writes:

>Empirical evidence SHOWS that different words cause different reactions
>in biased people. Hitler's speeches, based purely on physics, are not
>significantly different than those of the Pope's. However, any unbiased
>observer would NOT say the two are qualitatively the same.

===============================

Assume that you are correct.

Are you then saying that Hitler's speeches should be banned
while the Pope's should not?

Probably, if you search your soul, you will find that you
would ban ONLY the Pope's speech from science class because
you believe that the Pope's speech has some supernatural
power that you cannot for the life of you measure.

Riley M. Sinder

unread,
Mar 15, 1997, 3:00:00 AM3/15/97
to

--------------------------------------

[[Evolutionists apparently are very surprised to learn that
the teaching of creationism is banned from science
classes.]]

http://cns-web.bu.edu/pub/dorman/edwards_v_aguillard.html


"But because the primary purpose of the
Creationism Act is to endorse a particular
religious doctrine, the Act furthers religion in violation of
the Establishment Clause (15)."

-----

>>I know you won't get it, but for any listening in, again what is your
>>evidence of this supposed ban? Again, not _requiring_ the taxpayers
>>to _pay_ to have this taught in _public_ schools is NOT the same
>>as banning.


myc...@mycross.com (My Cross) writes:

>Just for your information - it is well known on the net that Riley
>Sinder (Cinder-rella) is a 'bot. It's a computer program designed to
>spew nonsense and keep a debate going, but going nowhere.

>Don't bother.

================================================

The following questions and answers were posted to red...@netcom.com
in response to the above conjecture.

-----

: Just a sampling of the prayers being offered to Red...@netcom.com

-----

: Dear Mr. Sinder:
:
: I have a very slow computer and all this posting concerning your
: physical reality is costing me a lot of time I could use for actually
: reading what I want to read. So I would greatly appreciate if you would
: answer the following questions:

: 1. Are you a real person by the actual name of Riley Sinder?


Answer: Yes and no.


: 2. If yes, how can I verify?


Answer: I have been working on this issue myself for some time. I know
why I want verification, but why would you?


: 3. Why can't I find Riley Sinder in the San Francisco telephone
: directory?


Answer: That is a LEC question. The LEC is the San Francisco
local telephone company, the local exchange carrier.


: 4. Has anybody speculating on your existence actually bothered to ask
: you?


Answer: Nobody, to my knowledge, has speculated on
the existence of Riley Sinder. Only verification issues.

Existence, and closely related issues, would best be
dealt with in a fresh Usenet group, such as
alt.lightness.of.being.

Ted Holden

unread,
Mar 15, 1997, 3:00:00 AM3/15/97
to

On Fri, 14 Mar 1997 10:13:58 -0500, "Brian F. King"
<bri...@ncinter.net> wrote:

>> [[Why are SOME superstitions deemed to be so powerful
>> that they must be banned from being taught as science?]]
>
>Because evidence shows that they would be taught INSTEAD of science,
>given the opportunity.

In the case of evolutionism, that certainly is not the case; science
is not involved at all. You obviously are concerned that the other
fellow's superstition might be taught instead of YOURS, but
but that could hardly be seen as any sort of a lowering of standards
or anything like that. In fact the most ignorant superstitions in
the world (other than evolutionism) would be vast improvements
(over evolutionism). When you look at Voodoo, Santaray,
Rastifari, thugism, or any similar doctrine, you never see any sort
of a requirement for infinite numbers of violations of probabilistic
laws as is the case with evolutionism.

In fact, comparing a rastifarian or a voodooer to an evolutionist is
almost like comparing a man to a baboon. You could, in fact,
construct a new religion by taking the single most ignorant doctrine
from all of the current religions and throw in human sacrafice and
cannibalism to boot, and what you would get would STILL make a great
deal more logical sense than evolutionism does and, in fact, be more
humaine. I mean, the Aztec system, sacrafice and cannibalism
included, could hardly be judged worse than the communist and nazi
regimes of this century, which were logical fallouts of the
evolutionist doctrine of "survival of the fittest" being the only
moral law in nature.

Think about it.

Ted Holden
http://access.digex.com/~medved/medved.html

. . , ,


____)/ \(____
_,--''''',-'/( )\`-.`````--._

,-' ,' | \ _ _ / | `-. `-.

,' / | `._ /\\ //\ _,' | \ `.

| | `. `-( ,\\_// )-' .' | |

,' _,----._ |_,----._\ ____`\o'_`o/'____ /_.----._ |_,----._ `.

|/' \' `\( \(_)/ )/' `/ `\|
` ` V V ' '



Splifford the bat says: Always remember

A mind is a terrible thing to waste; especially on an evolutionist.
Just say no to narcotic drugs, alcohol abuse, and corrupt ideological
doctrines.


Paul Z. Myers

unread,
Mar 15, 1997, 3:00:00 AM3/15/97
to

In article <332a30ef...@newsreader.digex.net>, med...@access.digex.net
(Ted Holden) wrote:

I'm afraid I'm all hung up on one point: how did you find out the Aztecs
were Darwinians?

--
Paul Myers
http://fishnet.bio.temple.edu/

Brian F. King

unread,
Mar 15, 1997, 3:00:00 AM3/15/97
to

Riley M. Sinder wrote:
>
> --------------------------------------
>
> spi...@MCS.COM (ArachnomaniA) writes:
>
> >Evolutionists have never banned anything.
>
> That may or may not be a true statement depending
> on what data you encounter.
>
> SOMEBODY sure banned the teaching of creationism
> from science curriculums.
>
> http://cns-web.bu.edu/pub/dorman/edwards_v_aguillard.html
>
> "But because the primary purpose of the
> Creationism Act is to endorse a
> particular religious doctrine, the
> Act furthers religion in violation of
> the Establishment Clause (15)."
>
> So the only test left is to see if the evolutionists
> did it.
>
> Evidently those who sued to stop the teaching of creationism
> did not object to the teaching of evolutionism because
> evolutionism was not opposed in the suit.
>
> Did you think that the CREATIONISTS sued to ban the
> teaching of creationism?

No.
I would wager that it was a neutral observer.

Brian F. King

unread,
Mar 15, 1997, 3:00:00 AM3/15/97
to

Riley M. Sinder wrote:
>
> --------------------------------
>
> [[The evolutionists insist that "religious speech" should be
> banned from science class because "religious speech" has
> some quality distinguishing it from ordinary speech.]]
>
> >> You have no rational reason for making a special exception
> >> about "religion"--whatever supernatural domain
> >> you think THAT is.
>
> "Brian F. King" <bri...@ncinter.net> writes:
>
> >Why of course there is.
> >You just stated it.
>
> >Why should "religion" be banned from the science class?
> >Because it is "whatever supernatural domain you think THAT is".
> >Guess what; science has no place for "THAT".
>
> =========================================
>
> Nevertheless, the evolutionists' obsession with "THAT"
> generates many lawsuits to eliminate "THAT" from science class.

Once again, slowly.

Science has no place or time for superstition.
That is why science does not want superstition in the science classroom.
REGARDLESS of its potential effect.

> But it is obvious to any neutral observer that NO
> speech has even a tinge of "THAT"--for there is no
> "THAT" such that the supernatural domain of "THAT"
> is greater than any part of zero.
>
> Hence, the evolutionists' fear of "THAT" is only a
> paranoid superstition.

You have a very stupid neutral observer.
One could substitute a rock in his place.

Remember that Adolph Hitler originally had no power beyond the force of
those words proclaiming his "superstition".

Without knowing the force of words, it is impossible to know human
beings.
Confucius.

ArachnomaniA

unread,
Mar 15, 1997, 3:00:00 AM3/15/97
to

> No neutral observer would expect the evolutionists to be
> polite.

> And there is no injustice if a debate is merely
> hotly contested. Even impoliteness and resistance could
> comport with any neutral standard of free speech.

> What is unacceptable is a legal banning of a teaching on the

> basis of some nonobjective and superstitious label like "religion."


What I find funny is that some how there is a 'debate' going on.
ItÕs really just a bunch of ill informed people believing their
religion is a science. And....oh wait....I'm 'talking' to
Riley.

[ignored]

Jeff

Raistlin Majere

unread,
Mar 15, 1997, 3:00:00 AM3/15/97
to

Riley M. Sinder wrote:

>
> The following questions and answers were posted to red...@netcom.com
> in response to the above conjecture.

>

> : Dear Mr. Sinder:
> :
> : I have a very slow computer and all this posting concerning your
> : physical reality is costing me a lot of time I could use for actually
> : reading what I want to read. So I would greatly appreciate if you would
> : answer the following questions:
>
> : 1. Are you a real person by the actual name of Riley Sinder?
>
> Answer: Yes and no.

Answer: Riley's a sophisticated bot created by psych majors at some
college.

> : 2. If yes, how can I verify?
>
> Answer: I have been working on this issue myself for some time. I know
> why I want verification, but why would you?

That is impossible being that you are merely a bot.

> : 4. Has anybody speculating on your existence actually bothered to ask
> : you?
>
> Answer: Nobody, to my knowledge, has speculated on
> the existence of Riley Sinder. Only verification issues.

Answer: many people have speculated, and we've found that you are a
bot.

Kids, the jig is up. It's time to pull the plug on Riley.

Raist
--
e-mail address fake to foil spam-bots
real: dkr...@execpc.com

"God did do it, science just ignores him": John P. Boatwright

*****************************************************************
Well I don't want no preacher telling me about the god in the sky
No I don't want no one to tell me where I'm gonna go when I die
I wanna live my life with no people telling me what to do
I just believe in myself, 'cause no one else is true
******************************************************************
((J)O.Osbourne/T.Iommi/W.Ward/T.Butler. From "Under the Sun/Every Day
Comes and Goes" Black Sabbath. _Sabbath Vol 4_)

Lenny Flank

unread,
Mar 15, 1997, 3:00:00 AM3/15/97
to

Brian F. King wrote:
>
> > Evidently those who sued to stop the teaching of creationism
> > did not object to the teaching of evolutionism because
> > evolutionism was not opposed in the suit.
> >
> > Did you think that the CREATIONISTS sued to ban the
> > teaching of creationism?
>
> No.
> I would wager that it was a neutral observer.


Actually it was Christians who did. In the Maclean v Arkansas case that
banned teaching creation "science", not a single one of the plaintiffs
was a scientist or a scientific organization. Not a one. All but two
were representatives of mainstream religious denominations who filed
suit
either on behalf of their denomination or on behalf of members
of their church who lived in Arkansas. These denominations included the
Lutherans, the Presbyterians, the Southern Baptists, the Episcopals and
the Methodists.

The argument made by the plaintiffs in this case was crushingly simple
and
very effective. By mandating the teaching of creation "science", the
plaintiffs argued, the fundamentalist fringe was in affect requiring the
state to give support to one particular religious view--biblical
literalism---which was not supported or accepted by the other religious
denominations, and was therefore mandating unconstituional favoring of
one
religious view over others. The court indeed ruled that creationism was
not science at all, but merely literalist biblical doctrine, and thus
unconstitutionally gave state support to the biblical literalist
religious view over the religious views of the plaintiffs. The law was
declared unconstitutional and was thrown out.

The cretinists tend to forget that it was Christian Protestant churches,
not "evolutionist scientists", who filed suit to have their equal time
bill thrown out.

=====================================================
Lenny Flank
"There are no loose threads in the web of life."

Check out my herp photos:
http://www.geocities.com/RainForest/2421
Creation "Science" debunked:
http://www.users.fast.net/~lflank
=====================================================

Damian Hammontree

unread,
Mar 15, 1997, 3:00:00 AM3/15/97
to
[ rambling snipped ]
>> ... I mean, the Aztec system, sacrafice and cannibalism

>> included, could hardly be judged worse than the communist and nazi
>> regimes of this century, which were logical fallouts of the
>> evolutionist doctrine of "survival of the fittest" being the only
>> moral law in nature.

>I'm afraid I'm all hung up on one point: how did you find out the Aztecs
>were Darwinians?

It was those two Aztec miners trapped in an obsidian mine who had a psychic
vision of the voyage of the HMS Beagle.

It's a myth - therefore it's gospel truth!

D
--
Damian Hammontree dam...@groucho.med.jhu.edu
"A spokesman for the Lyon Group, producers of _Barney and Friends_, denied
that Barney is an instrument of Satan." --the Advocate, spring 1994
...forever in debt to your priceless advice...

Riley M. Sinder

unread,
Mar 16, 1997, 3:00:00 AM3/16/97
to

-------------------------------

=============================================

You may be right.

The only way that democracy and glasnost will survive
is by keeping people from exercising democracy and glasnost.

On the other hand, you may simply be reciting the superstition
that has no power if only Adolph Hitler believes it.

However, if a whole nation believes your superstitious
fear of mere speech, then you may write your own end
to the joke which cannot be funny.

Riley M. Sinder

unread,
Mar 16, 1997, 3:00:00 AM3/16/97
to

-----------------------

>> > Evidently those who sued to stop the teaching of creationism
>> > did not object to the teaching of evolutionism because
>> > evolutionism was not opposed in the suit.

>> > Did you think that the CREATIONISTS sued to ban the
>> > teaching of creationism?

-----

>> No.

>> I would wager that it was a neutral observer.


Lenny Flank <lfl...@fast.net> writes:

>Actually it was Christians who did. In the Maclean v Arkansas case that
>banned teaching creation "science", not a single one of the plaintiffs
>was a scientist or a scientific organization. Not a one.


Exactly.

This banning of creationist speech is only an unconstitutional
establishment of one religion over another. Science is not involved.

Anyone who lacks religious beliefs would not find
creationist speech more offensive than Santa Claus speech
or vile republicanism.


>The argument made by the plaintiffs
>in this case was crushingly simple and
>very effective. By mandating the teaching of creation "science", the
>plaintiffs argued, the fundamentalist fringe was in affect requiring the
>state to give support to one particular religious view--biblical
>literalism---which was not supported or accepted by the other religious
>denominations, and was therefore
>mandating unconstituional favoring of one
>religious view over others.


Well, there you have it.

To any neutral observer, no one could sue under the
Establishment Clause without showing harm to religious
sensitivities.

For to any neutral observer, religion is only secular
speech and drama.

Now of course much speech and drama is Nonsense. And
if the Supreme Court had acted as a secular agent, then
the Court would have banned the teaching of creationism
under the Anti-Nonsense Clause of the First Amendment.

After all, the speaking of much nonsense
is well known to interfere with Free Speech.


>The court indeed ruled that creationism was
>not science at all, but merely literalist biblical doctrine, and thus
>unconstitutionally gave state support to the biblical literalist
>religious view over the religious views of the plaintiffs. The law was
>declared unconstitutional and was thrown out.


And THERE is the Court's logical error.

The Court cannot recognize that some mere nonsense is
an establishment of religion unless the Court
believes the religion that says the nonsense is
a religion.

To any neutral observer, religion is only secular
drama and speech.

The Supreme Court merely voted its own religious bias
that the Bible is a Word of God and not the mere mad
wonderings of secular sinners hoping to avoid personal
responsibility.

Riley M. Sinder

unread,
Mar 16, 1997, 3:00:00 AM3/16/97
to

-------------------


>> [[Why are SOME superstitions deemed to be so powerful
>> that they must be banned from being taught as science?]]


ras...@highfiber.com (Charles Dye) writes:

>For precisely that reason. A superstition that is not powerful
>poses no threat to civilization.


So you are proposing that the purpose for banning speech is
to reduce the threat to civilization?

Well, just about every worthwhile notion to come out in the
last hundred years has been a threat to the civilization
entrenched at the time of the invention.

Evidently, the Supreme Court has only superstitious bases
for banning speech. Never in any of the cases where the
Supreme Court banned speech did the Court consider ANY
threat to the civilization.


>It's the deceptions that are
>potent -- the ones that appear to work -- which threaten to topple
>the world back into barbarism.


Ah ha!

So the more empirical evidence that some threatening
notion has--which appears to make it work, then the more
certain should be the ban on the speech.

>It's the powerful deceptions
>that men of integrity are most bound to oppose.


Certainly you are right.

Men of integrity would not waste their time banning speeches
that have not truth in them. For speeches that have
not truth in them would be transparently funny to
the public.

The true usefulness of banning speech arises when the
truth begins to erode your conception of what civilization
should be.

And the speech of the truth that everybody wants to ignore
is the most threatening of all and, apparently from the
Supreme Court's record, deserves the highest priority
for banning as a "religion"--whatever superstitious
category THAT is.

Riley M. Sinder

unread,
Mar 16, 1997, 3:00:00 AM3/16/97
to

----------------------------------

[[The only speech that the Supreme Court has banned
is religious speech.

For example, the Court has banned creationist speech
from science classes.]]


> >Again and again and again, not _requiring_ the taxpayers


> >to _pay_ to have this taught in _public_ schools is NOT the same
> >as banning.

-----

>> Perhaps then you should explain

>> http://cns-web.bu.edu/pub/dorman/edwards_v_aguillard.html

>> "The District Court therefore held that
>> the Creationism Act violated the Establishment
>> Clause either because it prohibited the
>> teaching of evolution or because it required the teaching of
>> creation science with the purpose of
>> advancing a particular religious doctrine."

>> Why would the evolutionists have to ask protection
>> from advancing armies?


ji...@ix.netcom.com (James S. Lovejoy) writes:

>The better question to ask is why do the creationists
>depend upon legislation requiring their "theory" to
>be taught and/or banning evolution from being taught.

>Please note the decision did *not* say that either creation
>can *not* be taught, or that evolution *must* be taught,
>*only* that the state cannot *mandate* either.

============================================

Lucky for your argument, the ACLU has completely reformed
and today will be found suing to protect instead of suppress
free speech.

But the ACLU's conversion to the camp of enlightenment is very
recent.

Why just as recent as last May 1996, the ACLU published the
following assertion that the Supreme Court had banned
creationist speech from science classes.


http://www.aclu.org/news/w051396e.html

[ Part 2: "Attached Text" ]
[Image]

May 13, 1996: Creationism Not OK, Ohio ACLU Says

[Image]

The ACLU of Ohio has announced its intention to take legal action
against Lakewood Public Schools System if the district does not
adopt written policy against teaching creationism, the Cleveland
Plain Dealer reported.

Advocating creationism is a clear violation of the "U.S.
Constitution's mandate of separation of church and state," the
ACLU said. "The U.S. Supreme Court has already ruled that
creationism is religious theory, not science, and has no place in
public classrooms."

Recent reports in the Plain Dealer have revealed that two Lakewood
physics teachers have been promoting creationism in their
classrooms. One teacher has been doing so for the past five years,
passing out creationist material as "critical thinking exercises."

ACLU attorney Ray Vasvari said that "'critical thinking skills'
are buzzwords in creationist circles on how to get these ideas
through the door."

The other teacher, the Plain Dealer reported, told his students
that "evolution doesn't make sense," adding that homosexuality is
wrong and gay people "won't go to heaven."

Lakewood school board members have taken these accounts very
seriously, the Plain Dealer reported. The board has already held
one meeting to address the issue, and is planning on holding
hearings as well.

The ACLU wasted no time in alerting the school board as to the
unconstitutionality of allowing religious doctrine in public
schools.

In a letter submitted to the school district superintendent, the
ACLU outlined the actions that the school system must take in
order to avoid a lawsuit.

Besides adopting an official policy banning creationism, the
letter demanded that the policy be clearly communicated to all of
the district's teachers and that the two teachers who have taught
creationism illegally should be "specifically cautioned."

According to the Ohio ACLU director Christine Link, the ACLU is
interested in settling the matter amicably.

"We will make every effort to work with the Lakewood schools to
ensure that their physics curriculum remains in the scientific
realm and does not cross the line into religious dogma," Link
said.

[Image]

Copyright 1996, The American Civil Liberties Union

Lenny Flank

unread,
Mar 16, 1997, 3:00:00 AM3/16/97
to

Riley M. Sinder wrote:
>
> >Actually it was Christians who did. In the Maclean v Arkansas case that
> >banned teaching creation "science", not a single one of the plaintiffs
> >was a scientist or a scientific organization. Not a one.
>
> Exactly.
>
> This banning of creationist speech is only an unconstitutional
> establishment of one religion over another. Science is not involved.
>


Idiot. Your fundie friends LOST this case.


> Anyone who lacks religious beliefs would not find
> creationist speech more offensive than Santa Claus speech
> or vile republicanism.
>


So you'd have no objection to having evolutionary science taught in
fundie Sunday schools? After all, since evolution is obviously
falser and satanic, said fundies should find it no more offensive
than Santa Claus or Democrats . . . . .


> >The argument made by the plaintiffs
> >in this case was crushingly simple and
> >very effective. By mandating the teaching of creation "science", the
> >plaintiffs argued, the fundamentalist fringe was in affect requiring the
> >state to give support to one particular religious view--biblical
> >literalism---which was not supported or accepted by the other religious
> >denominations, and was therefore
> >mandating unconstituional favoring of one
> >religious view over others.
>
> Well, there you have it.


Indeed, there we have it. Creation "science" is the legal establishment
of one religious view over others, and is therefore unconstitutional.
I wouldn't expect a CD-ROM like "you" to understand the concept,
but fortunately for us most Federal judges have more brainpower than
"you" do.


>
> To any neutral observer, no one could sue under the
> Establishment Clause without showing harm to religious
> sensitivities.
>
> For to any neutral observer, religion is only secular
> speech and drama.
>


Blah blah blah. Fix your prgramming, bot. You're starting to blither.

Brian F. King

unread,
Mar 17, 1997, 3:00:00 AM3/17/97
to

Riley M. Sinder wrote:
>
> However, if a whole nation believes your superstitious
> fear of mere speech, then you may write your own end
> to the joke which cannot be funny.

There is no such thing as "mere" speech.
And no, the power of words is not funny.


However, if we take your stand that there does exist such a thing:

'Mere speech' can not possibly cause harm, because it has no physical
manifestation
in a neutral observer, correct?

Since it has no physical manifestation in a neutral observer, it also
cannot
cause GOOD in that observer. So why put it in a classroom, where it
would be a
completely unproductive waste of time?

Brian F. King

unread,
Mar 17, 1997, 3:00:00 AM3/17/97
to

med...@access.digex.net (Ted Holden) wrote:

> "Brian F. King" <bri...@ncinter.net> wrote:
>

> >> [[Why are SOME superstitions deemed to be so powerful
> >> that they must be banned from being taught as science?]]
> >

> >Because evidence shows that they would be taught INSTEAD of science,
> >given the opportunity.
>
> In the case of evolutionism, that certainly is not the case; science
> is not involved at all.

"Obviously".

Not in quantum mechanics, either.

> You obviously are concerned that the other
> fellow's superstition might be taught instead of YOURS, but
> but that could hardly be seen as any sort of a lowering of standards
> or anything like that.

Of course.
There are NO Christians, Jews, or Buddhists who believe in evolutionary
theory.
It would be beneath their morals.

> In fact the most ignorant superstitions in
> the world (other than evolutionism) would be vast improvements
> (over evolutionism).

Most ignorant superstitions in the world?

> When you look at Voodoo, Santaray,
> Rastifari, thugism, or any similar doctrine,

And you didn't include Fundamentalist Christianity in the list?

> you never see any sort
> of a requirement for infinite numbers of violations of probabilistic
> laws as is the case with evolutionism.

Of course not.

What are the odds of a benevolent anthropomorphic deity not only
existing, but
creating the world in under a week?

What are the odds that an apple contained all that knowledge about good
and evil!
[Wow, talk about "brain food!"]

What are the odds of it raining for 40 days and 40 nights, causing a
world-wide
flood which extinguished ALL life on the planet (even the fresh water
fish) except
for those living aboard a single boat?

Great "odds" - easily calculated... d'oh.

No sooner had Jesus knocked over the dragon of superstition than Paul
boldly
set it on its legs again in the name of Jesus.
G.B. Shaw

*----

On to other "statistics".
I really would like to know how these 'violations of probability' are
calculated.

I am quite sure that the odds of life spontaneously appearing on the 3rd
planet
from the star called Sol in the Milky way galaxy such that by the 20th
century
AD mankind would have evolved enough so that it could travel to that
planet's moon
are quite slim.

Simply beause you named specific locations and instances.

Just like the odds of Bill Smith, who lives in a blue house at
1431 Wilkinson drive in Washington DC, winning the Publisher's Clearing
House
sweepstakes on his 43rd birthday are REAL DAMN slim.

Now.

How many planets are there in the universe?
How old is the universe?

So what are the odds of life forming on SOME planet out of, what,
billions?, in a time-span of 5 billion or so years?

MAYBE pretty good, MAYBE pretty slim.
We don't know what those odds are; anyone who claims to know is a fool.

So to say "the odds are 1 in a billion" is a bunch of malarkey.

Similarly, what are the odds of SOMEONE winning the Publisher's Clearing
House
sweepstakes SOME year?

*-

BTW: evolution in and of itself does not deal with 'first cause'.
It does not say HOW life got here; just what happened after.

> In fact, comparing a rastifarian or a voodooer to an evolutionist is
> almost like comparing a man to a baboon. You could, in fact,
> construct a new religion by taking the single most ignorant doctrine
> from all of the current religions and throw in human sacrafice and
> cannibalism to boot, and what you would get would STILL make a great
> deal more logical sense than evolutionism does and, in fact, be more
> humaine.
>

> I mean, the Aztec system, sacrafice and cannibalism
> included, could hardly be judged worse than the communist and nazi
> regimes of this century, which were logical fallouts of the
> evolutionist doctrine of "survival of the fittest" being the only
> moral law in nature.

Survival of the fittest is not a moral law.
Evolution does not deal with morality.

Actually, science "period" does not deal with morality.

So I guess that mixing the most ignorant of doctrines and throwing in
cannibalism
to boot would also be more "humane" than mathematics from your
perspective...

> Think about it.

Ditto.

Men of faith know that throughout history, the crimes committed in
liberty's
name have been exceed only by those commited in God's name.
Mills E. Godwin

Riley M. Sinder

unread,
Mar 17, 1997, 3:00:00 AM3/17/97
to

-----------------------------------------

[[Repeatedly, the evolutionists justify a ban on creationist
speech on the basis that the students would be better off
studying evolutionism instead of creationism.]]


>> Any speech by a demagog such as a Hitler has no power.
>> Rather, any effect of a Hitler's speech follows from the
>> people's avoidance of personal responsibility. And any harm
>> following the mere speech derives from the dysfunctional beliefs
>> of the hearers--not from the wrongness of the speech.

>> However, if a whole nation believes your superstitious
>> fear of mere speech, then you may write your own end
>> to the joke which cannot be funny.

"Brian F. King" <bri...@ncinter.net> writes:

>There is no such thing as "mere" speech.
>And no, the power of words is not funny.


All right. If you are correct then it should be easy
for you to design the demonstration to distinguish empirically
between, on the one hand, what you ban as "religion speech"
and, on the other hand, the speech of an
imposter that merely seeks to impress
the audience--not the heavens.

It is interesting that the evolutionists' whole theory
of banning depends on the assertion that there exists
some quality of "religious speech" that is NOT secular.

But the evolutionists' dogma counters the totality of empirical
evidence--that if you remove all the secular elements of
any "religious speech" there is NOTHING left over that any
rational person could reasonably say is "religious."

Riley M. Sinder

unread,
Mar 17, 1997, 3:00:00 AM3/17/97
to

----------------------------------

>> >> [[Why are SOME superstitions deemed to be so powerful
>> >> that they must be banned from being taught as science?]]

-----

>> >Because evidence shows that they would be taught INSTEAD of science,
>> >given the opportunity.

-----

>> In the case of evolutionism, that certainly is not the case; science
>> is not involved at all.

"Brian F. King" <bri...@ncinter.net> writes:

>"Obviously".

>Not in quantum mechanics, either.

==========================================

When did quantum mechanists ban the teaching of some competitive
theory that the majority of taxpayers voted to teach?

The historical record suggests that, unlike the evolutionists,
the quantum mechanists have real-time demonstrations that
will do their convincing for them. No banning is necessary.

You might find between quantum mechanists
and critics MANY competitive discussions of
whether the ultimate quantum is a "tiny string" whose
undulations create all the particles and forces in the universe.

And quantum mechanists even tolerate such notions as the
"duality"--that the elementary quantums are made up of
the very particles they create.

But what the quantum mechanists seek is a theory of everything
that EXPLAINS the repeatable experiments.

In contrast, the evolutionists assert as primary data what
cannot be demonstrated--such as that all life descended from
the ONE pool of primordial Single-celled creatures.

John Boston

unread,
Mar 17, 1997, 3:00:00 AM3/17/97
to

On Sun, 16 Mar 1997 09:58:20 GMT, red...@netcom.com (Riley M. Sinder) wrote:

>-----------------------
>
>>> > Evidently those who sued to stop the teaching of creationism
>>> > did not object to the teaching of evolutionism because
>>> > evolutionism was not opposed in the suit.
>
>>> > Did you think that the CREATIONISTS sued to ban the
>>> > teaching of creationism?
>
>-----
>
>>> No.
>
>>> I would wager that it was a neutral observer.
>
>
>Lenny Flank <lfl...@fast.net> writes:
>

>>Actually it was Christians who did. In the Maclean v Arkansas case that
>>banned teaching creation "science", not a single one of the plaintiffs
>>was a scientist or a scientific organization. Not a one.
>
>
>Exactly.
>
>This banning of creationist speech is only an unconstitutional
>establishment of one religion over another. Science is not involved.

Which religion was preferred?


>Anyone who lacks religious beliefs would not find
>creationist speech more offensive than Santa Claus speech
>or vile republicanism.

What an interesting, but useless statement.

>
>>The argument made by the plaintiffs
>>in this case was crushingly simple and
>>very effective. By mandating the teaching of creation "science", the
>>plaintiffs argued, the fundamentalist fringe was in affect requiring the
>>state to give support to one particular religious view--biblical
>>literalism---which was not supported or accepted by the other religious
>>denominations, and was therefore
>>mandating unconstituional favoring of one
>>religious view over others.
>
>
>Well, there you have it.
>

>To any neutral observer, no one could sue under the
>Establishment Clause without showing harm to religious
>sensitivities.

So than an atheist couldn't sue under the E.C.?

>For to any neutral observer, religion is only secular
>speech and drama.

Please define or describe the characteristics of this neutral observer.

>Now of course much speech and drama is Nonsense. And
>if the Supreme Court had acted as a secular agent, then
>the Court would have banned the teaching of creationism
>under the Anti-Nonsense Clause of the First Amendment.

>After all, the speaking of much nonsense
>is well known to interfere with Free Speech.

>
>>The court indeed ruled that creationism was
>>not science at all, but merely literalist biblical doctrine, and thus
>>unconstitutionally gave state support to the biblical literalist
>>religious view over the religious views of the plaintiffs. The law was
>>declared unconstitutional and was thrown out.
>
>
>And THERE is the Court's logical error.
>
>The Court cannot recognize that some mere nonsense is
>an establishment of religion unless the Court
>believes the religion that says the nonsense is
>a religion.

Since the court didn't rule on "mere" nonsense, the above comment is
meaningless. We are dealing with "religious" nonsense. Which is different than
"scientific" nonsense or "mathematic" nonsense.


>To any neutral observer, religion is only secular
>drama and speech.

Again, who is this neutral observer, and should we care?
Is this neutral observer, you...by any chance?

>The Supreme Court merely voted its own religious bias
>that the Bible is a Word of God and not the mere mad
>wonderings of secular sinners hoping to avoid personal
>responsibility.

Interesting commentary.

Ted Holden

unread,
Mar 18, 1997, 3:00:00 AM3/18/97
to

On 15 Mar 1997 18:42:04 GMT, dam...@welchlink.welch.jhu.edu (Damian
Hammontree) wrote:


>It was those two Aztec miners trapped in an obsidian mine who had a psychic

>vision of the voyage of the HMS Beagle...

HMS Beagle...

Did any of you guys ever stop to think about the the sort of life this
guy Darwin was living? I mean, everybody else out on the oceans at
the time is in some sort of a ship called the Mary-Ann, the Helen,
the Sarah-Marie or some such and they're hanging out on the polynesian
islands talking to all the exotic <women>; and then you get Darwin out
on <The Beagle> looking for exotic animals... You get the feeling he
might have had a picture of Snoopy as a pin-up??

Riley M. Sinder

unread,
Mar 18, 1997, 3:00:00 AM3/18/97
to

--------------------------------

>>>> > Evidently those who sued to stop the teaching of creationism
>>>> > did not object to the teaching of evolutionism because
>>>> > evolutionism was not opposed in the suit.

>>>> > Did you think that the CREATIONISTS sued to ban the
>>>> > teaching of creationism?

-----

>>>> No.

>>>> I would wager that it was a neutral observer.

-----

>>>Actually it was Christians who did. In the Maclean v Arkansas case that
>>>banned teaching creation "science", not a single one of the plaintiffs
>>>was a scientist or a scientific organization. Not a one.

-----

>>Exactly.

>>This banning of creationist speech is only an unconstitutional
>>establishment of one religion over another. Science is not involved.


No.spam@John's.address (John Boston) writes:

> Which religion was preferred?


The Supreme Court established the religions that sued to
get protection from the teaching of creationism.

Certainly no neutral observer and no non-religious scientist
could sue to get protection under the Establishment Clause--
because the neutral observer and the non-religious scientist
could show no injury to their "religion" since they
do not have one.

John Wilkins

unread,
Mar 19, 1997, 3:00:00 AM3/19/97
to

In article <332ddcd1...@newsreader.digex.net>, med...@access.digex.net
(Ted Holden) spammed to a plethora of irrelevant groups, which I deleted in
this reply:

| On 15 Mar 1997 18:42:04 GMT, dam...@welchlink.welch.jhu.edu (Damian
| Hammontree) wrote:
|
|
| >It was those two Aztec miners trapped in an obsidian mine who had a psychic
| >vision of the voyage of the HMS Beagle...
|
| HMS Beagle...
|
| Did any of you guys ever stop to think about the the sort of life this
| guy Darwin was living? I mean, everybody else out on the oceans at
| the time is in some sort of a ship called the Mary-Ann, the Helen,
| the Sarah-Marie or some such and they're hanging out on the polynesian
| islands talking to all the exotic <women>; and then you get Darwin out
| on <The Beagle> looking for exotic animals... You get the feeling he
| might have had a picture of Snoopy as a pin-up??

Ted! That's almost humour. You want to watch out, you might start making
sense soon.

My only problem is with Louis Agassiz, the well-known special creationist
and catastrophist - his last trip was on a ship by the interesting name of
"The Hassler". Significant? I think so.

--
John Wilkins, Head of Communication Services, Walter and Eliza
Hall Institute of Medical Research [Remove .UNSPAM from header address]
<http://www.wehi.edu.au/~wilkins><mailto:wil...@wehi.edu.au>
It is not enough to succeed. Friends must be seen to have failed. - Capote

Michael Agney

unread,
Mar 19, 1997, 3:00:00 AM3/19/97
to

Ted Holden (med...@access.digex.net) wrote:
: On 15 Mar 1997 18:42:04 GMT, dam...@welchlink.welch.jhu.edu (Damian
: Hammontree) wrote:


: >It was those two Aztec miners trapped in an obsidian mine who had a psychic
: >vision of the voyage of the HMS Beagle...

: HMS Beagle...

: Did any of you guys ever stop to think about the the sort of life this
: guy Darwin was living? I mean, everybody else out on the oceans at
: the time is in some sort of a ship called the Mary-Ann, the Helen,
: the Sarah-Marie or some such and they're hanging out on the polynesian
: islands talking to all the exotic <women>; and then you get Darwin out
: on <The Beagle> looking for exotic animals... You get the feeling he
: might have had a picture of Snoopy as a pin-up??


: Ted Holden
: http://access.digex.com/~medved/medved.html

Well, at least it's funny.

<bat re-released to the wild>

--
Michael Agney

Brian F. King

unread,
Mar 19, 1997, 3:00:00 AM3/19/97
to

Riley M. Sinder wrote:
>
> -----------------------------------------
>
> [[Repeatedly, the evolutionists justify a ban on creationist
> speech on the basis that the students would be better off
> studying evolutionism instead of creationism.]]

Repeatedly, it is not "evolutionists".

Furthermore, regardless of whether or not evolutionary theory even
existed,
creation theory should not be permitted into the science classroom
because:
1. It is not science. 2. It is religion.

> "Brian F. King" <bri...@ncinter.net> writes:
>

> >There is no such thing as "mere" speech.
> >And no, the power of words is not funny.
>
> All right. If you are correct then it should be easy
> for you to design the demonstration to distinguish empirically
> between, on the one hand, what you ban as "religion speech"
> and, on the other hand, the speech of an
> imposter that merely seeks to impress
> the audience--not the heavens.

Well, first I would like to point out that quite a few "religion
speeches"
fall into your first category anyway - that is, seeking to impress the
audience
and not the heavens.

Second, as I have stated before, there is quite OBVIOUSLY no 100% purely
unbiased means of determining whether or not speech is "religious" or
not.

And that fact is COMPLETELY irrelevant.

*-

"Religion" has certain qualities which are "understood" by the majority
of
the population - a general consensus, if you will. Judgements are based
on
those ideas.

In your own terms, how does one "empirically" distinguish between first
degree
murder, second degree murder, manslaughter, or even self defense?
Dead is dead, right?

Quite obviously, your variation of unbiased observer is unable to make
any judgements based on emotion, morals, ethics, intent, cause, or
anything
even close to those.

Heck, he can't even tell you that a color is "blue" without running it
through
a spectrograph.

Pretty useless observer, it would seem.

*-

BTW: My dictionary says that "empirical" means
"based on experience or observation alone" - no "unbiased"
required.

> It is interesting that the evolutionists' whole theory
> of banning depends on the assertion that there exists
> some quality of "religious speech" that is NOT secular.

Secular adj, Not relating to or concerned with religion.

"Religious speech" by DEFINITION is NOT secular.

Similarly, speech about "love" is not speech about "hate",
regardless of the vibrational harmonics of the air waves.



> But the evolutionists' dogma counters the totality of empirical
> evidence--that if you remove all the secular elements of
> any "religious speech" there is NOTHING left over that any
> rational person could reasonably say is "religious."

Rational?
I would tend to say "irrational".
[What would the "secular elements" of religous speech be?
The word "the", the word "a"; any word which is not "God"?
That would be rather silly.]

Even the emotionless Spock understood the CONCEPT of emotion.
That is MUCH more than can be said for your kind of 'neutral observer'.

ArachnomaniA

unread,
Mar 19, 1997, 3:00:00 AM3/19/97
to

In talk.origins Riley M. Sinder <red...@netcom.com> wrote:
> --------------------------------------------

> Nevertheless, you would have the beginning of a
> rational argument if scientists
> legally banned all non-science subjects such as English
> and Latin from science classes.

I have yet to see English teachers claim that 'English' has
a viable theory to biological origins that explains the
fossil record better then the current theory of evolution.


> --
> Riley M. Sinder red...@netcom.com

Jeff


Riley M. Sinder

unread,
Mar 20, 1997, 3:00:00 AM3/20/97
to

--------------------------------------------

>> [[Repeatedly, the evolutionists justify a ban on creationist
>> speech on the basis that the students would be better off
>> studying evolutionism instead of creationism.]]


"Brian F. King" <bri...@ncinter.net> writes:

>Repeatedly, it is not "evolutionists".


"Evolutionist" is a term of art. Any standard English dictionary
will explain that an "evolutionist" is any person that advocates
or believes in biological evolution.

Let B be the set of all people that justify a ban on
creationist speech. If you look at the empirical data,
you will find that over 90% of the
people in set B are evolutionists--that
is, over 90% of the people in set B believe in biological evolution.

>Furthermore, regardless of whether or not evolutionary theory even
>existed, creation theory should not be permitted into the science classroom
>because:
> 1. It is not science. 2. It is religion.


If there were no religion of evolutionism, there
would be no religious injury to claim standing
under the Religion Clauses of the United States
Consititution.

Nevertheless, you would have the beginning of a
rational argument if scientists
legally banned all non-science subjects such as English
and Latin from science classes.

--
Riley M. Sinder red...@netcom.com


Riley M. Sinder

unread,
Mar 20, 1997, 3:00:00 AM3/20/97
to

------------------------------

[[The evolutionists claim that, even if there were no
religion of evolution to claim protection under the Religion
Clauses of the Constitution, STILL creationist speech should be
banned from science classes merely because, they claim,
creationism is not "science."]]


>> You would have the beginning of a
>> rational argument if scientists
>> legally banned ALL non-science speech such as English


>> and Latin from science classes.


spi...@MCS.COM (ArachnomaniA) writes:

>I have yet to see English teachers claim that 'English' has
>a viable theory to biological origins that explains the
>fossil record better then the current theory of evolution.

===================================

R I G H T!

But you reveal more than you intended.

So, you say, evolutionism bans only the speech that appears to
explain the fossil record better than the current theory
of evolution.


Brian F. King

unread,
Mar 20, 1997, 3:00:00 AM3/20/97
to

Riley M. Sinder wrote:
>
> If there were no religion of evolutionism, there
> would be no religious injury to claim standing
> under the Religion Clauses of the United States
> Consititution.

I don't recall evolutionary theory needing protection AS a religion,
merely protection FROM religion.

> Nevertheless, you would have the beginning of a
> rational argument if scientists
> legally banned all non-science subjects such as English


> and Latin from science classes.

As far as I am aware, neither "English" nor "Latin" are attempting
to be taught as a subject in a science class...

Riley M. Sinder

unread,
Mar 20, 1997, 3:00:00 AM3/20/97
to

-------------------------------

>> If there were no religion of evolutionism, there
>> would be no religious injury to claim standing
>> under the Religion Clauses of the United States
>> Consititution.

"Brian F. King" <bri...@ncinter.net> writes:

>I don't recall evolutionary theory needing protection AS a religion,
>merely protection FROM religion.

=================================

To get standing under the Establishment Clause, even atheists
must claim "standing" by asserting a personal religious domain which is
harmed by the state's establishment of a competing religion.

After all, until you have indoctrinated yourself that doing the
rosary has some imagined NON-secular significance, doing the rosary has
no religious quality that distinguishes doing the "rosary" from doing
the "poker deck."

Thus, to the unindoctrinated, there is NO non-secular quality to
any act of anything animal, vegetable, or mineral.

Mitchell Coffey

unread,
Mar 20, 1997, 3:00:00 AM3/20/97
to

Riley M. Sinder <red...@netcom.com> wrote in article
<rednbluE...@netcom.com>...
> --------------------------------------------
>

Item One:

> >> [[Repeatedly, the evolutionists justify a ban on creationist
> >> speech on the basis that the students would be better off
> >> studying evolutionism instead of creationism.]]
>
>

> "Brian F. King" <bri...@ncinter.net> writes:
>

> >Repeatedly, it is not "evolutionists".
>

Item Two:

> "Evolutionist" is a term of art. Any standard English dictionary
> will explain that an "evolutionist" is any person that advocates
> or believes in biological evolution.
>
> Let B be the set of all people that justify a ban on
> creationist speech. If you look at the empirical data,
> you will find that over 90% of the
> people in set B are evolutionists--that
> is, over 90% of the people in set B believe in biological evolution.
>
>
>
> >Furthermore, regardless of whether or not evolutionary theory even
> >existed, creation theory should not be permitted into the science
classroom
> >because:
> > 1. It is not science. 2. It is religion.
>

Item Three:

>
> If there were no religion of evolutionism, there
> would be no religious injury to claim standing
> under the Religion Clauses of the United States
> Consititution.


Item Four:


> Nevertheless, you would have the beginning of a
> rational argument if scientists
> legally banned all non-science subjects such as English
> and Latin from science classes.
>
>
>

> --
> Riley M. Sinder
red...@netcom.com
>


Note the evident use of a random number generator to produce
sinder_object's responses to issues of fact:

1. Item One does not, of course, actually represent anyone's justifications
for excluding psuedosciences from science claseses.

2. Item Two is a nonsequitur, the sinder_object having cut the relevant
points from the post it claims to be quoting from.

3. Item Three is wildly inaccurate, as no knowlegible person refers to
"Religion Clauses" in the US Constitution, and as the provisions of the
Constitution dealing with the separation of church and state do not assert
a need for some "religious injury to claim standing" under those provisions
-- indeed, this asserted need for such injury is wholey an original
invention of the sinder_object.

4. Item Four is the most interesting, as each of the several assertions
therein bares only a random relationship to the truth:

4a. "Scientists" have banned nothing; these are the actions of courts and
legislatures;

4b. The issue has never been that "non-science subjects" should be or have
been "banned" from science classes; the issue has been that only science
should be taught *as science* in science classes, and that neither any
particulary religion, or religion itself, can be established as official in
government schools.

4c. And, of course, the reference to the alleged teaching of Latin and
English in science classes has no relationship either with the law, the
facts or, indeed, any non-random relationship at all to the subject at
hand.


Note: The reader must recall when reviewing the responses generated from
the sinder_object that neutral observers have unanimously concluded that
the sinder_object is either machine-driven or mentally ill; therefore no
ethical judgements should be drawn regarding its untruths and its selective
cutting of real people's post.

--
Mitchell Coffey
Header address is an anti-spam fake.
Real email address is: mco...@grci.com.
*********************************************************************

Glendower: "At my nativity
The font of heaven was full of fiery shapes,
Of burning cressets, and at my birth
The frame and huge foundation of the earth
Shaked like a coward!"

Hotspur: "Why, so it would have done at the same season
If your mother's cat had but kittened, though yourself
Had never been born.
...

Glendower: "I can call spirits from the vasty deep!"

Hotspur: "Why, so can I, or so can any man;
But will they come when you do call for them?"

-- Shakespeare, Henry IV, Part One, III, i


Riley M. Sinder

unread,
Mar 21, 1997, 3:00:00 AM3/21/97
to

--------------------------------------

[[The evolutionists have an interesting argument that
creationism should be banned from science class merely because
it is not science.

However, there is no indication that the evolutionists
would ban NON-science subjects generally from science class.

For example, there is only a very minor faction of
evolutionists that would ban English and Latin from
science classes.]]

-----

>> But English and Latin do not threaten to explain the


>> fossil record better than the current theory of evolution.

-----



> So, you say, evolutionism bans only the speech that appears to
> explain the fossil record better than the current theory
> of evolution.


mag...@erols.com wrote:

> Actually, it's not "evolutionism" doing the "banning."

> It's the U. S. Constitution, as interpreted by a diverse collection
> of federal judges, from Overton and Duplantier to the Circuit Court of
> Appeals and the U. S. Supreme Court.


Exactly the point here. Each and every one of the judges
that voted for banning creationist speech from science classes
personally preferred hearing an evolutionist sermon rather
than a creationist sermon.

And most of these judges professed a personal faith in evolutionism
as an essentially correct explanation of origins.

> The plaintiffs, you will remember, included students, teachers,
> parents, and a substantial number of Christian denominations in official
> capacities.


Exactly.

The ban on creationist speech amounted to the establishment
of an official state religion that approved of the religious
view of the Christian denominations that sued to stop the
creationist speech.

Evidently, the long historic legal battle between evolutionism
and creationism is only a head-to-head competition between
the religions.

> The Supreme Court declared that creationism is religion.

To reach that conclusion, the Supreme Court had to establish
the federal religion that some speech is "religious"
and some speech is "secular."

That distinction can be made ONLY by one indoctrinated into
the religion that such a superstitious idea has any real
component.

James S. Lovejoy

unread,
Mar 21, 1997, 3:00:00 AM3/21/97
to

Translation: I don't like the 1st Amendment, but if I know I can't
eliminate it unless I lie, so I'll say it's just a superstition,
and hope someone is stupid enough to believe me.

Creation 'science' fundamentalism: recruiting arm of Atheists of America

Dr. Monkey Spank

unread,
Mar 21, 1997, 3:00:00 AM3/21/97
to

Riley M. Sinder wrote:
> Exactly the point here. Each and every one of the judges
> that voted for banning creationist speech from science classes
> personally preferred hearing an evolutionist sermon rather
> than a creationist sermon.

You pathetic monkey-spank. Creationist speech wasn't banned. Religious
speech was, which be definition must include creationism. And what the
fuck is an evolutionist sermon? Do you call anything you don't like a
religion, and then dismiss it? What a shithead!



> And most of these judges professed a personal faith in evolutionism
> as an essentially correct explanation of origins.

Here you go again. Ascribing a way of thinking, i.e., the scientific
method, with the moniker "faith" and then dismissing it like any old
religion. What an idiot.



> The ban on creationist speech amounted to the establishment
> of an official state religion that approved of the religious
> view of the Christian denominations that sued to stop the
> creationist speech.

You're an ignorant butt-nugget.



> Evidently, the long historic legal battle between evolutionism
> and creationism is only a head-to-head competition between
> the religions.

Yeah, it's like gravity is my religion. So if I ever decide to give
up my faith, I guess I'll go floating off. Right?

You Chicago students are ignorant butt-wipes!

--
Dr. MonkeySpank - Esq., CEO
Simian Disciplinary Systems Institute
monke...@beavisandbutthead.com

Brian F. King

unread,
Mar 21, 1997, 3:00:00 AM3/21/97
to

Riley M. Sinder wrote:
>
> "Brian F. King" <bri...@ncinter.net> writes:
>
> >I don't recall evolutionary theory needing protection AS a religion,
> >merely protection FROM religion.
>
> =================================
>
> To get standing under the Establishment Clause, even atheists
> must claim "standing" by asserting a personal religious domain which is
> harmed by the state's establishment of a competing religion.

Why couldn't the atheist show that the "competing religion" infringes on
the personal religious domain of... Christians, for example?

In that case, one need not prove one's OWN religious belief (or lack) at
all.

> After all, until you have indoctrinated yourself that doing the
> rosary has some imagined NON-secular significance,

The roasary DOES have non-secular significance.
The significance exists in the minds of those who believe in it;
REGARDLESS of the opinion of the un-indoctrinated person.
[Your claim is akin to saying that a sound which goes unheard is not a
sound,
or that a rainbow which is not seen is not a rainbow.]

Claude Du Bois

unread,
Mar 22, 1997, 3:00:00 AM3/22/97
to

red...@netcom.com (Riley M. Sinder) wrote:

>--------------------------------------
>
>
> [[The evolutionists have an interesting argument that
> creationism should be banned from science class merely because
> it is not science.
>
> However, there is no indication that the evolutionists
> would ban NON-science subjects generally from science class.
>
> For example, there is only a very minor faction of
> evolutionists that would ban English and Latin from
> science classes.]]
>
>-----
>
>>> But English and Latin do not threaten to explain the
>>> fossil record better than the current theory of evolution.
>
>-----
>
>> So, you say, evolutionism bans only the speech that appears to
>> explain the fossil record better than the current theory
>> of evolution.
>
>
> mag...@erols.com wrote:
>
>> Actually, it's not "evolutionism" doing the "banning."
>
>> It's the U. S. Constitution, as interpreted by a diverse collection
>> of federal judges, from Overton and Duplantier to the Circuit Court of
>> Appeals and the U. S. Supreme Court.
>
>

>Exactly the point here. Each and every one of the judges
>that voted for banning creationist speech from science classes
>personally preferred hearing an evolutionist sermon rather
>than a creationist sermon.
>

>And most of these judges professed a personal faith in evolutionism
>as an essentially correct explanation of origins.
>
>
>

>> The plaintiffs, you will remember, included students, teachers,
>> parents, and a substantial number of Christian denominations in official
>> capacities.
>
>
>Exactly.
>

>The ban on creationist speech amounted to the establishment
>of an official state religion that approved of the religious
>view of the Christian denominations that sued to stop the
>creationist speech.
>

>Evidently, the long historic legal battle between evolutionism
>and creationism is only a head-to-head competition between
>the religions.
>
>
>

>> The Supreme Court declared that creationism is religion.
>
>
>
>To reach that conclusion, the Supreme Court had to establish
>the federal religion that some speech is "religious"
>and some speech is "secular."
>
>That distinction can be made ONLY by one indoctrinated into
>the religion that such a superstitious idea has any real
>component.
>
>
>
>--
>Riley M. Sinder red...@netcom.com
>

I know of no one who is telling people that if they want to
believe in creationism that they cannot do so! Everyone has the right
to believe what they want!
Now as to teaching Creationism in the Public School System,
the Supreme Court was correct in their interpretation that it is "
Religion !" If you consider that every School System in the World
teaches Evolutionism, regardless of the national Religious Beliefs!
I for one would not want my children to be taught a
pseudo-science based on belief as opposed to FACT! Next you people
will want to teach psedo-math and psedo-history, based on the Bible!
Don't we have enough problems in our educational system that needs to
be corrected without wasting time on psedo anything?

Claude

Riley M. Sinder

unread,
Mar 22, 1997, 3:00:00 AM3/22/97
to

-----------------------------------

>>> The Supreme Court declared that creationism is religion.

-----

>>To reach that conclusion, the Supreme Court had to establish
>>the federal religion that some speech is "religious"
>>and some speech is "secular."

>>That distinction can be made ONLY by one indoctrinated into
>>the religion that such a superstitious idea has any real
>>component.


pla...@erols.com (Claude Du Bois) writes:

>Don't we have enough problems in our educational system that need to
>be corrected without wasting time on pseudo anything?

====================

No neutral observer would advocate the teaching of pseudo-
anything as fact whether the pseudo be of common
descent or of creationism.

Furthermore, any neutral observer would suggest that the
Supreme Court should stop establishing the pseudo-religion of
evolutionism in preference to the pseudo-religion of
creationism.

Accordingly, any neutral observer would prefer an objective method for
banning the speech of pseudo-facts from science classes.

For example, the Supreme Court might apply a neutral banning standard
to both evolutionism and creationism.

Thus, the Supreme Court might assert that neither evolutionists
nor creationists could teach as fact in science class any
conclusion that could NOT be demonstrated in a repeatable experiment.

Under such a neutral banning standard, the evolutionists could
not teach that life descended from one pool of Single-celled
creatures because evidently no evolutionist can repeat that miracle
in any controlled experiment.

Similarly, no creationist could teach that life descended from
the first pairs that God created in Genesis because empirically no
creationist can repeat that miracle in any pulpit.

Norman R. Gall

unread,
Mar 22, 1997, 3:00:00 AM3/22/97
to

In article <rednbluE...@netcom.com>, red...@netcom.com (Riley M.
Sinder) wrote:

>Nevertheless, you would have the beginning of a
>rational argument if scientists

>legally banned all non-science subjects such as English


>and Latin from science classes.

Well, no. He already has 'the beginning of a rational arguement.' But
this isn't the point. No one is arguing that Literary Criticism or Latin
Translation be taught in Sciences classes _as_ science.

As such there is no need for anyone to argue for such a ban.

Maybe we should be trying to stick to the point.

Norm Gall

--
"On an occasion of this kind it becomes more than a moral duty to
speak one's mind. It becomes a pleasure." - Oscar Wilde

mfri...@ix.netcom.com

unread,
Mar 22, 1997, 3:00:00 AM3/22/97
to

Riley says:

>No neutral observer would advocate the teaching of pseudo-
>anything as fact whether the pseudo be of common
>descent or of creationism.

>Furthermore, any neutral observer would suggest that the
>Supreme Court should stop establishing the pseudo-religion of
>evolutionism in preference to the pseudo-religion of
>creationism.

>Accordingly, any neutral observer would prefer an objective method >for banning the speech of pseudo-facts from science classes.

>For example, the Supreme Court might apply a neutral banning standard
>to both evolutionism and creationism.

I reply:

The problem here is that evolution is science, creationism is
religion. There are no two ways about it. Creationism is based on
Christian belief and does not exist independently. There is no
evidence for creationism - it explains nothing, is based on no
observations, and, the final test of scientific theory, does not allow
prediction of anything. Evolution is a viable and active field based
on a great deal of evidence included in the fossil record, modern
zoology, genetic research - within each of these fields there is
sufficient evidence for evolution and advances in understanding
evolution contributes to each - another thing creationsim fails to do
There is a sufficient lack of evidence for creationism that the
concept of creationism as a science is as absurd as the concept of
blocks of granite playing chess.


MAF

Riley M. Sinder

unread,
Mar 23, 1997, 3:00:00 AM3/23/97
to

------------------------------

[[The evolutionists have two options. First, they might assert
a superstition that religious speech has some abnormal
voodoo power and hence must be banned.

OR in attempting to avoid the superstitious elevation of
religious speech to some power that empirically religion
does not have, the evolutionists might assert that ANY
non-scientific discipline should be banned from
the science class.

But the true superstitious origin of the evolutionists'
ban manifests in ONLY religious speech having the
appearance of a threat--in the evolutionists' eyes.]]


>>The evolutionists would have the beginning of a
>>non-superstitious motivation for the ban if scientists


>>legally banned all non-science subjects such as English
>>and Latin from science classes.


ga...@umanitoba.ca (Norman R. Gall) writes:

>No one is arguing that Literary Criticism or Latin
>Translation be taught in Sciences classes _as_ science.

>As such there is no need for anyone to argue for such a ban.

=================================

Are you quite sure that the evolutionists would sue to
ban English and Latin from science classes if Literary
Criticism and Latin Translation moved into science
classes demanding to be taught as a science?

Probably not--because the evolutionists do not have an
irrational and superstitious FEAR of English and Latin.

Hence, the evolutionists quite easily deal with English
and Latin teachers moving into their classroom as exactly
what it actually is--a mere political power-play.

Lacking no superstitious fear of English or Latin, the
evolutionists would not be driven to the supernatural
measures of forcing a legal ban on the speech of English
or Latin.

Riley M. Sinder

unread,
Mar 23, 1997, 3:00:00 AM3/23/97
to

-----------------------------

mfri...@ix.netcom.com writes:

>Evolution is a viable and active field based

>on a great deal of evidence.

>On the other hand, there is a sufficient

>lack of evidence for creationism that the
>concept of creationism as a science is as absurd as the concept of
>blocks of granite playing chess.

===================================

No WONDER the evolutionists see such a supernatural threat
from creationism!

It goes against all logic. It is absurd that anyone would
even WANT to teach creationism as a science. And the polls
showing that over 55% of adult Americans would vote to
put creationism into the science classes WITH evolutionism
must appear to the evolutionists as some kind of demon
possession.

The evolutionists' predicament has a very natural and mundane
explanation, however. For the evolutionists do not face a demonic
power. They face only realistic skeptics that understand quite
well that the evolutionists' most dear dogmas, such as
common descent from Single-celled creatures, are not only
preposterous but unprovable, unfalsifiable, and unusable
for any practical end.

At least creationism has some practical use in getting you
a good position on the Alabama legislature as an ardent
defender of the faith.

Riley M. Sinder

unread,
Mar 23, 1997, 3:00:00 AM3/23/97
to

----------------------------

[[From a strictly logical standpoint, the Establishment Clause
cases since 1947 amount to only the establishment of one
religion over some other.]]

>> To get standing under the Establishment Clause, even atheists
>> must claim "standing" by asserting a personal religious domain which is
>> harmed by the state's establishment of a competing religion.


"Brian F. King" <bri...@ncinter.net> writes:

>Why couldn't the atheist show that the "competing religion" infringes on
>the personal religious domain of... Christians, for example?

>In that case, one need not prove one's OWN religious belief (or lack) at
>all.

==========================================

That might be a good idea. Then everybody could be looking
out for the other person--and suing in the other person's behalf.

However, there is one flaw in this proposal. To get standing
you must show a PERSONAL injury in fact.

But do not worry. It is obvious from the expressions of pain
in the atheist's face on hearing a good revival prayer. It is
obvious that the atheist's personal domain of religion
has been injured.

Now to any neutral observer, it is ironic that the atheist
must admit to the atheist's religious faith in order to
stop the public speech of the wrong prayer that so offends
the atheist.

Claude Du Bois

unread,
Mar 23, 1997, 3:00:00 AM3/23/97
to

red...@netcom.com (Riley M. Sinder) wrote:

>-----------------------------------
>
>>>> The Supreme Court declared that creationism is religion.
>
>-----
>
>>>To reach that conclusion, the Supreme Court had to establish
>>>the federal religion that some speech is "religious"
>>>and some speech is "secular."
>
>>>That distinction can be made ONLY by one indoctrinated into
>>>the religion that such a superstitious idea has any real
>>>component.
>
>
>pla...@erols.com (Claude Du Bois) writes:
>
>>Don't we have enough problems in our educational system that need to
>>be corrected without wasting time on pseudo anything?
>
>====================
>

>No neutral observer would advocate the teaching of pseudo-
>anything as fact whether the pseudo be of common
>descent or of creationism.
>
>Furthermore, any neutral observer would suggest that the
>Supreme Court should stop establishing the pseudo-religion of
>evolutionism in preference to the pseudo-religion of
>creationism.

Considering the fact that we know how fast the speed of Light
is, and that we can measure it. We know that the Earth has been around
for 5 Billion years! We can also measure the date of fossils from the
Paleozoic Era ( 550 Million years ago!) The Mesozoic Era ( 195
Million years ago) and tthe Cenozoic Era ( 80 Million years ago!) By
the use of Carbon Dating! That also does not include the use of
Isotopes deterioration rates! Which all prove that Evolution is a
Science, as opposed to use of Ouija-boards and supposed Statement by
God in the Bible, which is at best a third hand recording of Supposed
fact! Not mention the need to have " Blind " Faith! Consequently,
Creationism is a Pseudo-science!


>
>Accordingly, any neutral observer would prefer an objective method for
>banning the speech of pseudo-facts from science classes.

Please give me some examples of what would be considered "
Objective Methods?"

>
>For example, the Supreme Court might apply a neutral banning standard
>to both evolutionism and creationism.

In other words you want to BAN the same Science Methods that
enabled us to send men to the Moon? Or are you attempting to tell us
that it was due to Creationism that we were able to accomplish this
feat? Creationism is the reason that Europe went through the DARK
AGES! While the Arab World was light years ahead of them because they
used Scientific methods to discover Mathematics - Physics - Human
Biology to name but a few of there discoveries! While the Church
refused to even recognize that the Earth Revolved around the Sun! It
seems that your agenda is to return us to the good old Dark Ages!

>
>Thus, the Supreme Court might assert that neither evolutionists
>nor creationists could teach as fact in science class any
>conclusion that could NOT be demonstrated in a repeatable experiment.

Would that include the existance of God? Or of Jesus Christ?

>
>Under such a neutral banning standard, the evolutionists could
>not teach that life descended from one pool of Single-celled
>creatures because evidently no evolutionist can repeat that miracle
>in any controlled experiment.

Hate to rain on your parade ( not really ) but it has already
been done numerous times in Labs all over the world! Where a
Primordial Soup is placed in a Bell Jar and manmade lightning is
passed through it, with the result that Primordial cells are formed.

>
>Similarly, no creationist could teach that life descended from
>the first pairs that God created in Genesis because empirically no
>creationist can repeat that miracle in any pulpit.

As I have said before, no one is stopping you from believing
what you want to believe, the problem is that you people without
anything other then " Blind Faith " want to retard the Education of
American Children!

Claude

mfri...@ix.netcom.com

unread,
Mar 23, 1997, 3:00:00 AM3/23/97
to

Riley writes:

>
>No WONDER the evolutionists see such a supernatural threat
>from creationism!

I reply:

More like seeing the typical threat that arises when ignorance and
cupidity become the foundation of social activity. Extremists such as
creationists are like monkeys swinging from lamp-poles, chittering
through the society of an advanced race, disrupting the orderly
processes of education and learning, making noise devoid of meaning
and serving only to reinforce their beastiality, throwing feces out of
both malice and a vague resentment of their inability to understand
even the simplest concepts to which they are daily exposed.

You continue:

>It goes against all logic. It is absurd that anyone would
>even WANT to teach creationism as a science.

I reply:

Your statement surely holds for more advanced members of humanity, but
for it to carry more truth you must re-write somewhat - replace it
with 'It is absurd that anyone would think they have any rational
foundation for teaching creationism as science.

Beyond these statements your post became rather vague.

MAF

Paris Flammonde

unread,
Mar 23, 1997, 3:00:00 AM3/23/97
to Claude Du Bois

Claude Du Bois wrote::
> > >
> > > Paris Flammonde wrote:
> > > >
> > > > CHRISTIAN ARGUMENT
> > > > AND ITS INEVITABILITY
> > > >
> > > > Bede
> > > >
> > > > A. There is a God.
> > > > 1. He is eternal (always was and always will be)
> > > > 2. He is omnipotent (a power capable of anything)
> > > > 3. He is omniscient (absolutely all knowing)
> > > > 4. He is omnipresent (always at all places at once)
> > > > 5. He is flawlessly Good.
> > > > B. God created the universe and remained to operate it.
> > > > C. God created human beings and they were good.
> > > > BUT humankind was not all good, it was part evil.
> > > > D. God made humankind evil in the first place.
> > > > NO, he made it good, but he gave it "free will."
> > > > WITH "free will" man chose to be evil.
> > > > E. But God is OMNISCIENT (all and ever knowing), THEREFORE
> > > > He gave man "free will" knowing he would chose evil.
> > > > F. WITH PREMEDITATION, God created a creature he knew would be evil.
> > > > G. THEREFORE, when god made good he, also, made evil.
> > > > H. A God that was omnipotent (all powerful) could easily have created a man who would not do evil.
> > > > I. THEREFORE God not only premeditatively created evil, he did it by choice, for, if it was not, then he is NOT
> > > > OMNIPOTENT.
> > > > J. To wit: God either intentionally created evil along with
> > > > good (and then he would NOT be PERFECTLY GOOD), or he DID NOT KNOW what would happen (thus he could not
> > be OMNISCIENT), or he COULD NOT control it, and so
> > was NOT OMNIPOTENT. Not having anyone of these
> > attributes> would mean he was not the CHRISTIAN
> > IMAGE of GOD, lacking all three it is doubtful he
> > would be a GOD of any kind.
> > >
> > > > * * * * * * *
> > > > Paris Flammonde

Paris Flammonde

unread,
Mar 23, 1997, 3:00:00 AM3/23/97
to Claude Du Bois

Claude Du Bois wrote:
>
>Paris Flammonde wrote:
>
> Jim Sarbeck wrote:
> >
> > In article <5glhpf$u...@www.univie.ac.at>, ki...@amuon.imep.univie.ac.at wrote:
> >
> > Jim:
> > : >Yes, that is where it leads us, and it is an important logical conclusion
> > : >(logic being a necessity for human understanding). It has big
> > : >implications. I'll name one it has for me; that adherence to a particular
> > : >view of God (whether it is theistic or atheistic) has no justification in
> > : >human experience, if that God is viewed as omni-qualitied.
> > :
> > : And my view is, if one simply allows for a logically consistent
> > : definition of the omni-qualities, then this particular objection
> > : disappears.
> > :
> > : Let me make it clear - I am an athiest. But consider the following
> > : "creation story," which, as far as I can tell, is logically consistent:
> >
> > Nice story, I promise not to believe you believe it. If you make any
> > information not presently available to the OB, the story is LC (logically
> > consistent) and much like Allan Watts' story of God playing hide and seek
> > from himself (his a-morphism, not mine) in "The Book ... etc."
> >
> > But to your previous comment, I say that logical consistency is not an
> > allowing, it is a setting of limits. It limits. Right? Maybe it limits
> > deity to what we can comprehend, discuss, hypothesize about, but it
> > limits.
> >
> > Regards,
> > Jim Sarbeck
> > *~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*popelish wrote:
> >
> > Zarathustra wrote:
> >
> > * God is a concept in which we measure our pain...
> >
> > * There are bennifits and costs to various actions.
> > * Some of man's actions hve been defined as good and
> > * some evil. We have the ability to make choices.
> > * We should not assume that we are inherently good or
> > * evil. There is no laws of nature just laws that
> > * we create.
> >
> > * I wish to proclaim the end to metaphysics.
> > * Only man can judge man. Nature is random.
> > * Sin is when somone violates man's laws but
> > * is not punnished by nature (god). If there
> > * were natural laws man would be punished in nature.
> > * When nature fails man must punish man. If death is
> > * the punishment for sin than we will all die.
> > * It like the rosster taking credit for the dawn.
> >
> > Well said. Several religious people I have spoken with lately were more
> > concerned with evil behavior being punished by God during the afterlife,
> > than with their own reward for good behavior. The injustice of nature
> > is what really bugs them.
> >
> > John Popelish
> > John Popelish
>
> Paris Flammonde wrote:
> > > > Paris Flammonde

Daniel Schuman

unread,
Mar 23, 1997, 3:00:00 AM3/23/97
to


There has been a raging argument about whether or not evolution is a
religion. Riley M. Sinder (for all intensive purposes) contends that it
is a religion, such as creationism is a religion. He therefore concludes
that since one is taught in the school systems, the other should be taught
as well.

There are two different levels to attack this fallacious contention. One
is to point out the difference between evolution and creationism, citing
the scientific basis for one and the religious basis for the other. The
second argument is that since they are both belief systems, that they
should both be taught in school. This can be attacked on the qualitative
differences between the two belief systems: namely that belief in science
is indeed something that should be taught in school, same as belief in
mathematics, and belief in history, as they are subjective only to the
extent that a person cannot take himself/herself out of their context,
while the belief of religion is by its very nature wholly subjective and
not subject to any basis in reality.

Tenets of Science (as manifested in evolution) and tenets of religion (as
manifested in creationism).

Tenets of Science. There are three steps to any scientific model. The
first is the inductive process, in which the model or explanation is
created. That is called the hypothesis. This is based on the facts as
they are known. The second step, known as the deductive process, is when
the hypothesis is tested. The third and final step is the validation of
the model. Via extensive deductive testing of the model, and positive
results, the idea gains stature in the scientific community. There is no
tribunal that decides upon elevation of a hypothesis to a theory or a
theory to a scientific law. It happens as models explain the real world
effectively and allow effective predictions.

Because of this model of science, many discoveries have been made. One of
those discoveries is evolution. It explained the fossil records, the
variations within species, the taxonomy system, the existence of
dinosaurs, and so forth. By using artificial selection as a model for how
natural selection can occur, it present a cogent premise. By looking at
fossil records, and examining DNA, scientists have accepted as law that
evolution occurs, because all known facts support it, and it explains many
former mysteries.

Tenets of Religion. Religion, unlike science, does not need any such
basis in reality. Creationism is the literal belief in the book of
Genesis of the bible. It holds that god created the world in six days, on
the sixth day creating man, and so forth. At the time, it explained many
phenomenon -- where man came from, why rainbows exist, why men are
superior, why animals exist, why the universe exists, etc. It too is a
scientific belief system, as man at the time had many primitive scientific
tools. god or deities were the answer, because humanity could not figure
out how to test reality. We have come a long way since then.

For the knowledge that we have, religion, at least the one of creationism,
is no longer the answer. We know the universe wasnt created in six days,
and that rainbows are the result of refraction of a raindrop, not a
miracle of god. We do not know that evolution is perfect, although it is
the best theory that we have. We do know that creationism is fatally
flawed.

Higher education and belief systems.

The purpose of education is to teach people certain skills. Where man
came from historically, what are his capabilities now, and what are his
tools. Those are manifested in history courses, science and engineering
courses, and English (communications) and engineering and mathematics
courses. Religion does not fit into these categories, except as a
description of why man took actions in history, today being included in
that history. It is important to know the beliefs which drove them, and
take from those beliefs that which is good. However, history cannot
masquerade as science. To teach creationism in biology class ( current
capabilities and tools, explains the world), would be improper as it does
not describe the world, as we know it, today.

So, Riley M. Sinders arguments about teaching a religion in science class
is unfounded. We are teaching what we know of the world. His (!)
religious philosophy, that of creationism, may be important to understand
from a historical point of view, but has absolutely no relation to the
real world as a descriptive theory of that world, except as a driving
force for those who do not know that it is a fallacious belief system. He
can argue all he wants about life coming from non-life, but his theory of
how it happened, is known to be wholly fallacious. He does not argue that
it is impossible, as the experiments creating ordered amino acids pairs
from non-ordered pairs, the first step to life, has been performed in a
laboratory.

All in all, it is a good attempt to convince people that Rileys beliefs
should either be taught, or that evolution should not. Unfortunately for
Riley, his beliefs arent science, and evolution is.

Daniel Schuman

**************************************************************************
**The only thing necessary for evil to triumph is for good to do nothing**
**************************************************************************


Daniel Schuman

unread,
Mar 23, 1997, 3:00:00 AM3/23/97
to

Michael Agney

unread,
Mar 23, 1997, 3:00:00 AM3/23/97
to

Riley M. Sinder (red...@netcom.com) wrote:
: Accordingly, any neutral observer would prefer an objective method for

: banning the speech of pseudo-facts from science classes.

: For example, the Supreme Court might apply a neutral banning standard


: to both evolutionism and creationism.

: Thus, the Supreme Court might assert that neither evolutionists


: nor creationists could teach as fact in science class any
: conclusion that could NOT be demonstrated in a repeatable experiment.

: Under such a neutral banning standard, the evolutionists could


: not teach that life descended from one pool of Single-celled
: creatures because evidently no evolutionist can repeat that miracle
: in any controlled experiment.

Under such a neutral banning standard, the astronomers could not teach
that supernovas exist because no astronomer can repeat such an event
in any controlled experiment.

Under such a neutral banning standard, the historians could not teach
that Gutenbwerg invented the printing press because no historian can
repeat that event in any controlled experiment.

Under such a neutral banning standard... well, either you get the idea,
or you never will.


Evolution is supported by repeatable experiments. We can go on fossil
digs and come up with fossils that fit with the proposed theories of
the history of life. We can measure the DNA matches of living organisms
and observe that their relative differences fit with the fossil evidence.
Et cetera, et cetera, et cetera.

--
Michael Agney

Riley M. Sinder

unread,
Mar 24, 1997, 3:00:00 AM3/24/97
to

------------------------------

[[Currently, the Supreme Court uses only a religious
sensibility to determine what speech is to be banned.

"Does this sound like the old time religion I was
brought up to hate?"

If yes, then it must be banned from the science
class.]]


>>Any neutral observer would prefer an objective method for


>>banning the speech of pseudo-facts from science classes.


pla...@erols.com (Claude Du Bois) writes:

> Please give me some examples of what would be considered
>"Objective Methods?"

====================================

The "Objective Methods" are illustrated by banning the
firing of a gun directly into the fleshy part of your
neighbor.

If empirically some act creates a measurable damage, then
there is an "Objective Method" for distinguishing what
is to be banned from what is NOT to be banned.

However, in the case of banning "religious speech," there
is only the superstition that hearing the "religion" will
infect something or other in the hearer. But the evolutionists
have never shown what it is that is damaged.

Riley M. Sinder

unread,
Mar 24, 1997, 3:00:00 AM3/24/97
to

-------------------------------


[[Instead of using a superstitious voodoo method
for deterimining the speech that is to be banned from
science classes, the Supreme Court might

apply a neutral banning standard
to both evolutionism and creationism.]]


>>Thus, the Supreme Court might assert that neither evolutionists
>>nor creationists could teach as fact in science class any
>>conclusion that could NOT be demonstrated in a repeatable experiment.

pla...@erols.com (Claude Du Bois) writes:

> In other words you want to BAN the same Science Methods that
>enabled us to send men to the Moon?


Apparently you have not heard that the Science Methods
that enabled you to send men to the Moon are repeatable.

WHICH of those methods used to send men to the Moon
was not repeatable?


>Or are you attempting to tell us
>that it was due to Creationism that we were able to accomplish this
>feat?


Creationism was able to send only ONE rocket to the Moon.
But that was so long ago and apparently the ONE rocket
flight is NOT repeatable. So by an objective standard,
creationism should be banned--if the unrepeatable dogmas
of evolutionists are banned.


>Creationism is the reason that Europe went through the DARK
>AGES!


Really! Now what was this mechanism of voodoo? Is it
the magical cadence of the creationism speech that generates
this power of sending Europe through the DARK ages? Or is it
the specialness of the words?

No doubt if you think it through, you will conclude that
a LOT of faith is required to make the trick work--because
just the spoken words do not send Europe through the
DARK ages.

Street urchins use those same words in curses every day.

And when was the last time you saw Europe go through a
DARK age?

Apparently, you are just doing superstition by saying that
MARS in Jupiter did it to you. For there is no statistical
correlation between your dependent variable of "Europe
going through a DARK age" and your independent variable
of "creationist speech being made."

Claude Du Bois

unread,
Mar 24, 1997, 3:00:00 AM3/24/97
to

red...@netcom.com (Riley M. Sinder) wrote:

>------------------------------
>
> [[Currently, the Supreme Court uses only a religious
> sensibility to determine what speech is to be banned.
>
> "Does this sound like the old time religion I was
> brought up to hate?"
>
> If yes, then it must be banned from the science
> class.]]
>
>
>>>Any neutral observer would prefer an objective method for
>>>banning the speech of pseudo-facts from science classes.
>
>

>pla...@erols.com (Claude Du Bois) writes:
>

>> Please give me some examples of what would be considered
>>"Objective Methods?"
>
>====================================
>
>The "Objective Methods" are illustrated by banning the
>firing of a gun directly into the fleshy part of your
>neighbor.

Were do you get Murder or maiming as a Scientific Objective
Method? I would think that if would come under the Legal System.

>If empirically some act creates a measurable damage, then
>there is an "Objective Method" for distinguishing what
>is to be banned from what is NOT to be banned.

Please show us what " measurable Damage " is caused by
teaching Scientific Fact?


>However, in the case of banning "religious speech," there
>is only the superstition that hearing the "religion" will
>infect something or other in the hearer. But the evolutionists
>have never shown what it is that is damaged.
>

According to the U.S. Constitution which by the way does not once
mention " God !" Bill of Rights Article #1 " Congress shall make no
law respecting an establishment of Religion, or prohibiting the free
exercise thereof," Looks like Congress already broke the law by put "
In God We Trust " on our money! And I have not seen anyone who has
attempted to take away your right to express your views ( Even though
you wish to inpose your religious views on others!)

Claude

Brian F. King

unread,
Mar 24, 1997, 3:00:00 AM3/24/97
to

> ------------------------------

> ga...@umanitoba.ca (Norman R. Gall) writes:
>
> >No one is arguing that Literary Criticism or Latin
> >Translation be taught in Sciences classes _as_ science.
>
> >As such there is no need for anyone to argue for such a ban.
>
Riley M. Sinder wrote:
>
> =================================
>
> Are you quite sure that the evolutionists would sue to
> ban English and Latin from science classes if Literary
> Criticism and Latin Translation moved into science
> classes demanding to be taught as a science?

Yes.
Quite sure.



> Probably not--because the evolutionists do not have an
> irrational and superstitious FEAR of English and Latin.

Nor of religion.



> Hence, the evolutionists quite easily deal with English
> and Latin teachers moving into their classroom as exactly
> what it actually is--a mere political power-play.
>
> Lacking no superstitious fear of English or Latin, the
> evolutionists would not be driven to the supernatural
> measures of forcing a legal ban on the speech of English
> or Latin.

Should there come a point where English and Latin were being taught
(or attempting to be taught) in a science class as science, the teachers
of those sciences would have no recourse but legal action.

Should 55% of the school board suddenly decide that grammar should
be taught in a physics class, what is the physics professor to do?

Riley M. Sinder

unread,
Mar 24, 1997, 3:00:00 AM3/24/97
to

----------------------------------


Paris Flammonde <ta...@noln.com> writes:

> D. God made humankind evil in the first place?

> NO, he made it good, but he gave it "free will."
> WITH "free will" man chose to be evil.

====================================

The prophet sat under the beaux tree determined to see
through heaven.

Beneath the layer of human evil there was the layer
of social evil. And beneath the layer of social evil
there was a crust of free will indistinguishable at
a quick glance from Uncertainty of simultaneous observation
of momentum and position.

And like an onion, the heavens unpeeled. And the prophet
saw the core of it, looking at the backs of his own hands.

The atoms--the buzzing of the atoms--uncaring tools of their
own destiny--were themselves evil--not thinking of the
consequences of their actions. Apparently, the atoms in
the back of the prophet's hand had no knowledge or hint
of a God that the atoms might seek or inhabit--if the God
be a physical presence.

Thus was born the great missionary quest--the enlightenment
of the Atomic Masses.

Now that task is to be shouldered with
humility of mind for the heathen there are innumerable.

Riley M. Sinder

unread,
Mar 24, 1997, 3:00:00 AM3/24/97
to

--------------------------

[[What interesting fables the evolutionists
devise to justify the banning of speech to accomplish
their purely political goals!]]


Daniel Schuman <dsc...@emory.edu> writes:

>The purpose of education is to teach people certain skills.


Any skill surely must grow from some repeatable experiment.

For how could an indoctrination also be a skill unless the
"skill" could be used to transform physical matter?

The missionaries do attempt to indoctrinate many learned
habits that are NOT skills.

Apparently, the recitation of prayer is NOT a skill. For the
transformation of matter following prayer is not repeatable.

Furthermore, the recitation of the generations of common
descent from the Single-celled creatures is NOT a skill. For,
like prayer, the pool of Single-celled creatures fails
to give any transformation of cows, cobras, or conger
eels.

>Religion does not fit into the category of a skill, except as a


>description of why man took actions in history, today being included in
>that history.


That may be true.

The question is one of logical consistency.

If you are to ban the teaching of what the majority elects to
teach in the science classes that the taxpayers fund, then you
surely must have a NON-religious standard for the banning.

And the evolutionists as yet have offered only superstitious,
supernatural, and logically INcoherent tests for the speech
that should be banned from science classes.

To advance from their dark ages, the evolutionists must write
into one document the words that are "religious." And then
the evolutionists must show empirically that the speaking
of these "religious" words has ANY measurable effect on matter whether
animal, vegetable, or mineral.

mfri...@ix.netcom.com

unread,
Mar 24, 1997, 3:00:00 AM3/24/97
to

Riley M. Sinder wrote:
>
......

>
> Thus was born the great missionary quest--the enlightenment
> of the Atomic Masses.
>
> Now that task is to be shouldered with
> humility of mind for the heathen there are innumerable.
>

I interject:

Clearly a task you should not give up on under any circumstances You
should note however, that the internet is All Truth - verily the mind
of God made flesh. By attempting to convert the heathen, you attempt
to pervert the perfect Mind of God itself. Your Damnation is assured.

MAF

Claude Du Bois

unread,
Mar 24, 1997, 3:00:00 AM3/24/97
to

red...@netcom.com (Riley M. Sinder) wrote:

>-------------------------------
>
>
> [[Instead of using a superstitious voodoo method
> for deterimining the speech that is to be banned from
> science classes, the Supreme Court might
> apply a neutral banning standard
> to both evolutionism and creationism.]]
>
>
>>>Thus, the Supreme Court might assert that neither evolutionists
>>>nor creationists could teach as fact in science class any
>>>conclusion that could NOT be demonstrated in a repeatable experiment.
>
>

>pla...@erols.com (Claude Du Bois) writes:
>

>> In other words you want to BAN the same Science Methods that
>>enabled us to send men to the Moon?
>
>
>Apparently you have not heard that the Science Methods
>that enabled you to send men to the Moon are repeatable.
>
>WHICH of those methods used to send men to the Moon
>was not repeatable?
>
>
>>Or are you attempting to tell us
>>that it was due to Creationism that we were able to accomplish this
>>feat?
>
>
>Creationism was able to send only ONE rocket to the Moon.

Please give us all the Factual Information on how Creationism
pseudo-science sent a rocket to the moon? And when?


>But that was so long ago and apparently the ONE rocket
>flight is NOT repeatable. So by an objective standard,
>creationism should be banned--if the unrepeatable dogmas
>of evolutionists are banned.

What are the unrepeatable dogmas of Evolutionist Science?

>
>>Creationism is the reason that Europe went through the DARK
>>AGES!
>
>
>Really! Now what was this mechanism of voodoo? Is it
>the magical cadence of the creationism speech that generates
>this power of sending Europe through the DARK ages? Or is it
>the specialness of the words?

I have attached 3 papers concerning the Dark Ages for your
edification!

>
>No doubt if you think it through, you will conclude that
>a LOT of faith is required to make the trick work--because
>just the spoken words do not send Europe through the
>DARK ages.

Read the 3 attachments!


>
>Street urchins use those same words in curses every day.

And what might those words be?

>
>And when was the last time you saw Europe go through a
>DARK age?

I have attached 3 documents to answer your question.

>
>Apparently, you are just doing superstition by saying that
>MARS in Jupiter did it to you. For there is no statistical
>correlation between your dependent variable of "Europe
>going through a DARK age" and your independent variable
>of "creationist speech being made."

Read the attached documents!

Claude

Riley M. Sinder

unread,
Mar 24, 1997, 3:00:00 AM3/24/97
to

-----------------------------

[[Curiously, the evolutionists would even attempt the
ban of English and Latin from science classes--IF
they realized that English and Latin were "religions."

You understand that the evolutionists have a very
famous empirical Sour Lemon test to detect "religion."

If some group THINKS it is a religion, it IS a religion
and must be banned from science classes.]]

-----

>> Are you quite sure that the evolutionists would sue to
>> ban English and Latin from science classes if Literary
>> Criticism and Latin Translation moved into science
>> classes demanding to be taught as a science?

"Brian F. King" <bri...@ncinter.net> writes:

>Yes.
>Quite sure.

>Should 55% of the school board suddenly decide that grammar should
>be taught in a physics class, what is the physics professor to do?

===========================

Yes. Heaven forbid that the physics professor would correct
students on their grammar!

Or horror-or-horrors, what if the school board would REQUIRE the
physics professor to correct the students on their grammar!

What is the physics professor to do!

Claude Du Bois

unread,
Mar 24, 1997, 3:00:00 AM3/24/97
to

begin 644 darkages.htm
<uuencoded_portion_removed>
'=&UL/@T-"O__
`
end

ArachnomaniA

unread,
Mar 24, 1997, 3:00:00 AM3/24/97
to

In talk.origins Riley M. Sinder <red...@netcom.com> wrote:
> ------------------------------

> Probably not--because the evolutionists do not have an
> irrational and superstitious FEAR of English and Latin.
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

I hope you are not implying that the action to ban
creationism from the class room is due to an
irrational fear?

> --
> Riley M. Sinder red...@netcom.com

Jeff

mfri...@ix.netcom.com

unread,
Mar 24, 1997, 3:00:00 AM3/24/97
to

Riley M. Sinder wrote:
>
.....

>
> Furthermore, the recitation of the generations of common
> descent from the Single-celled creatures is NOT a skill. For,
> like prayer, the pool of Single-celled creatures fails
> to give any transformation of cows, cobras, or conger
> eels.

I note:

It's called a postulate, or hypothesis. Unlike a religious precept,
it does not carry the stigma of absolute truth independent of
evidence. You continue to illustrate clearly why religion has no
place in science.

MAF

John Boston

unread,
Mar 24, 1997, 3:00:00 AM3/24/97
to

On Mon, 24 Mar 1997 16:46:05 GMT, red...@netcom.com (Riley M. Sinder) wrote:

>-----------------------------
>
> [[Curiously, the evolutionists would even attempt the
> ban of English and Latin from science classes--IF
> they realized that English and Latin were "religions."
>
> You understand that the evolutionists have a very
> famous empirical Sour Lemon test to detect "religion."
>
> If some group THINKS it is a religion, it IS a religion
> and must be banned from science classes.]]
>
>-----
>
>>> Are you quite sure that the evolutionists would sue to
>>> ban English and Latin from science classes if Literary
>>> Criticism and Latin Translation moved into science
>>> classes demanding to be taught as a science?
>
>
>"Brian F. King" <bri...@ncinter.net> writes:
>
>>Yes.
>>Quite sure.
>
>>Should 55% of the school board suddenly decide that grammar should
>>be taught in a physics class, what is the physics professor to do?
>
>===========================
>
>Yes. Heaven forbid that the physics professor would correct
>students on their grammar!

Correct a student's grammar. I thought the question concerned the teaching of
grammar in a phyics class.

I still don't understand why a study of religion belongs in a science class.
I really don't understand why you "switched" the question of teaching grammar
in a phyics class to correcting a student's grammar.

Perhaps this is all you can do.

maxx at exis net
#202

Pharaoh Chromium 93

unread,
Mar 24, 1997, 3:00:00 AM3/24/97
to

Claude Du Bois wrote:
>
> red...@netcom.com (Riley M. Sinder) wrote:
>
> >--
> >Riley M. Sinder red...@netcom.com
> >

Shadow of the Third Century
http://alamut.alamut.org/c73/shadow.htm

Daniel Schuman

unread,
Mar 24, 1997, 3:00:00 AM3/24/97
to

Riley M. Sinder's arguments are again based on misleading information,
based on a false information heirarchy.

First of all, as I wrote in my last email, there is a great difference
between evolution and creationism. One is considered, by scientists, to
be law, and the other is considered, by Christians, to be law. The
ultimate question is: Which one reflects reality? The underlying thought
here is that one reflects a true world view, and the other does not.

Riley could argue, and if he weren't a machine probably would do so, that
scientists are the high priests of evolution, and that its belief too is a
cult religion, dedicated to wiping out the opposition, just as
Christianity is. By making this argument, he could continue that because
scientists are the high priests of this religion which teaches evolution,
teaching evolution in the public school system is endorsement of religion.

That argument, on its own merits, is false. No Christian priest, based on
knowledge of his religion, can create a nuclear reaction, a power plant, a
shuttle, a telescope. A scientist can. This is because of the difference
in methodology. A scientist relies on what he can derive from the world,
test, and prove again. A creationist relies on what he has been told by
his religious book, unable to prove that its contents ever happened, or
that they will ever happen again.

If Riley were to want to call science a religion, it is all right by me.
It is the perfect religion -- it represents the world as it is. It is an
accurate world view. So fine, god is dead, and evolution is king. Since
it is KNOWN to be true, such as Creationism is KNOWN to be false, we
should indeed teach what is true, and that is evolution. We do not need
to give equal time in schools because their purpose is indeed
indoctrination of reality. After all, the purpose of school is to teach
students how to best understand the world. And only evolution describes
the world accurately.

To finish up this topic, Riley argues that the Supreme Court is the Pope
of evolution. He has this, along with most things, more than a little
backward. The Supreme Court's job is to keep religion out of the schools.
The question is: how do we define religion? The answer: an irrational
belief is something which does not reflect reality. Is evolution a
religion? Since it does reflect reality, it obviously cannot be.
Therefore, evolution is not a religion. So, we made another subset of
beleifs, called science. Science is from the root ' to know', and
accurately describes what it is about: knowledge of the true reality.

Therefore, since the court's job is to keep religion out of schools, and
religion does not reflect reality, than creationism must be kept out of
schools. Since evolution does reflect reality, and the school's job is to
teach knowledge of reality, evolution stays in.

I hope this doesn't scramble your circuits. As Lt. Barclay of Star Trek
once said, "Computer, end program."

Daniel Schuman

unread,
Mar 24, 1997, 3:00:00 AM3/24/97
to

Riley again fails to grasp reality.

Although correct in stating that creationism and evolution are branches of
beliefs, what he fails to recognize is that one is valid, and the other
invalid.

Creationism reflects a world view, with creation 6 days long, 100 year old
mothers having children, and a 6000 year old Earth. We know that to be
false.

Evolution reflects a world view with the Earth 5 billion years old, with a
slow aggregation of amino acids, synthesized by lightening into the first
organisms, and slowly, over BILLIONS of years, becoming more and more
complex, until we reach where we are today. We know that amino acids can
be synthesized, as we have done it ourselves. We know that natural
selection occurs as we have performed artificial selection, and the fossil
record shows, over time, the results and changes from natural selection.
We have vestigal organs which we know are from our previous forms. In
short, we know this to be true.

Atheists have a cogent belief system which reflects the world as it is
known. Creationist have an incoherent belief system which has never
accurately reflected the world.

Why should we protect that which is incorrect against that which is
correct? Why should we teach our children lies? Why should athetists not
be allowed to describe reality?

The answer is that we must tell the truth, and creationists do not possess
it.

Riley M. Sinder

unread,
Mar 25, 1997, 3:00:00 AM3/25/97
to

---------------------------------

pla...@erols.com (Claude Du Bois) writes:

> What are the unrepeatable dogmas of Evolutionist Science?

============================

Is it not true that the evolutionists teach that
all life evolved from "prokaryotes" which are Single-celled
creatures--like bacteria--lacking even a cell nucleus?

If you say "Yes," then you should show where anyone--even
with the greatest of evolutionist faith--has stressed
out any colony of "prokaryotes" to
make them turn into anything other than "prokaryotes."

If you say "No," then perhaps you would rather play a game
of chess instead of this evolutionism v. creationism game.

Riley M. Sinder

unread,
Mar 25, 1997, 3:00:00 AM3/25/97
to

---------------------


>> [[Currently, the Supreme Court uses only a religious
>> sensibility to determine what speech is to be banned.

>> "Does this sound like the old time religion I was
>> brought up to hate?"

>> If yes, then it must be banned from the science
>> class.]]

>>>>Any neutral observer would prefer an objective method for
>>>>banning the speech of pseudo-facts from science classes.

pla...@erols.com (Claude Du Bois) writes:

>According to the U.S. Constitution which by the way does not once

>mention "God!" Bill of Rights Article #1 "Congress shall make no


>law respecting an establishment of Religion, or prohibiting the free
>exercise thereof,"


You are reading the Cliff Notes edition of the Constitution.

Article I of the real Constitution begins
"All legislative Powers herein granted shall be
vested in a Congress of the United States, which shall consist
of a Senate and House of Representatives."


>Looks like Congress already broke the law by putting


>"In God We Trust" on our money!

How does putting "In God We Trust" have anything to do with
religion? You say God is not mentioned in the Constitution.
Therefore you have to add your OWN superstition that the word
"God" triggers "religion."

Forget the lawyers. Any English major would tell you that the
plain English phrase "You shall make no decision respecting
religion" would prohibit you from drawing any conclusion
that "God" had anything to do or NOT to do with "religion."

The plain English phrase "You shall make no decision respecting
religion" asserts that you shall make your decisions on
NON-religious grounds.

Maybe you are afraid of three-letter words.

Riley M. Sinder

unread,
Mar 25, 1997, 3:00:00 AM3/25/97
to

-----------------------------

[[Would the evolutionists ban English and Latin from
science class just because some zealots worshipped
English and Latin as "religions"?

-----

>> Probably not--because the evolutionists do not have an
>> irrational and superstitious FEAR of English and Latin.
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^


spi...@MCS.COM (ArachnomaniA) writes:

>I hope you are not implying that the action to ban
>creationism from the class room is due to an
>irrational fear?

====================================

Apparently there are two prongs to your test. First,
there is the fear prong. And then there is the irrational
prong.

Do the evolutionists ban the teaching of creationism from
science class because of a FEAR that something will
happen?

Evidently they do--because the evolutionists fear that
the next generation will believe the creationism if the
evolutionists fail to ban it.

The evolutionists are losing to the competition
in the market. And thus they at least have the fear that
the producers of shoddy products have.

The evolutionists fear the effectiveness of the competition.

Is the evolutionists' fear irrational?

Apparently it is--because the real competition to evolution is
the Saturday morning cartoons that keep the serious students
from enjoying their Saturday morning of memorizing the
Generations of the Evolution.

Accordingly, the evolutionists should be spending their time banning their
REAL competition for the souls of the young instead of
banning the old-time religion which the young have long
forgotten anyhow. Madonna is much more interesting than
the Virgin Mary. The average teenager would recognize
Madonna on the street. But daily the Virgin Mary makes
her appearance in the flesh and is mistaken for a homeless
person carrying a cross.

Hence, it is Madonna that the evolutionists should ban--NOT
the Virgin Mary.

Riley M. Sinder

unread,
Mar 25, 1997, 3:00:00 AM3/25/97
to

------------------------

>: Instead of the current religious standard, any neutral
>: observer would prefer an OBJECTIVE method for


>: banning the speech of pseudo-facts from science classes.

>: For example, the Supreme Court might apply a neutral banning standard


>: to both evolutionism and creationism.

>: Thus, the Supreme Court might assert that neither evolutionists
>: nor creationists could teach as fact in science class any
>: conclusion that could NOT be demonstrated in a repeatable experiment.

>: Under such a neutral banning standard, the evolutionists could


>: not teach that life descended from one pool of Single-celled
>: creatures because evidently no evolutionist can repeat that miracle
>: in any controlled experiment.


magney@winnie (Michael Agney) writes:

>Under such a neutral banning standard, the astronomers could not teach
>that supernovas exist because no astronomer can repeat such an event
>in any controlled experiment.


Perhaps you have not heard that several supernovas can be observed
on any clear night. Why do you stretch a simple neutral
standard to ban supernovas?

>Under such a neutral banning standard, the historians could not teach
>that Gutenbwerg invented the printing press because no historian can
>repeat that event in any controlled experiment.


Up til now, the evolutionists' ban reached only the holy of
holies--the evolutionists' science classes.

Now you want to extend the ban to HISTORY classes too? Maybe
the historians would like to keep that BAN--which is the
most visible trait of evolutionism--OUT of their history
classes.

Keep all those bans restricted to the science class where such
superstitions belong.


>Evolution is supported by repeatable experiments.


That depends on how strong your faith is. Does your
faith in evolution extend only to the repeatable experiments?
--wherein ONLY finches evolve from finches--never fish
from finches?

Or does your faith in evolution extend to the whole dogma
that fish AND finches evolved from the same Single-celled creatures?

Would you care to repeat THAT?

>We can go on fossil
>digs and come up with fossils that fit with the proposed theories of
>the history of life.


Yes. And the repeatable results of all that would be fossil digs,
fossils, fits, and proposed theories.

You still get only finches from finches.


>We can measure the DNA matches of living organisms
>and observe that their relative differences fit with the fossil evidence.
>Et cetera, et cetera, et cetera.


Probably. And the repeatable results of that would be DNA matches,
observations of relative differences, fits with fossil evidence,
and many et ceteras.

You still get only finches from finches.

Riley M. Sinder

unread,
Mar 25, 1997, 3:00:00 AM3/25/97
to

-----------------------------

[[If the creationists would just give up their claim to be
a "religion," then the evolutionists would have no power
to ban creationism from being taught in science classes.]]


Daniel Schuman <dsc...@emory.edu> writes:

>The poster could argue, and if he weren't

>a machine probably would do so, that
>scientists are the high priests of evolution,
>and that its belief too is a
>cult religion, dedicated to wiping
>out the opposition, just as
>Christianity is.

Apparently, evolutionists do not have high priests.

They may have a majority of JUSTICES on the current
Supreme Court. But they do not have high priests.

The evolutionists do not need high priests because evolutionism
is a belief that arrives by personal spontaneous enlightenment.

Traditionally high priests manifest among the religions in
which the enlightenment is passed down to the people by
rote.

But evolutionism is not like that.

>By making this argument, he could continue that because
>scientists are the high priests of this religion which teaches evolution,
>teaching evolution in the public school system is endorsement of religion.

Teaching evolutionism is only teaching evolutionism.

A mere teaching is not a religion--no matter WHAT the words.

It is the banning of dissenting teachings that makes the religion.

Riley M. Sinder

unread,
Mar 25, 1997, 3:00:00 AM3/25/97
to

-------------------------------

[[Evolutionism and creationism equally demonstrate the religious
zeal of attempting a legal ban on the speech of the opposition.]]


Daniel Schuman <dsc...@emory.edu> writes:

>Although correct in stating that creationism and evolution are branches of
>beliefs, what he fails to recognize is that one is valid, and the other
>invalid.


Every invalid religion has asserted its own validity--and
asserted its rightful place to ban the speech of the
opposition.

In contrast, a valid chess player never has to ban the teaching
of the invalid player.

The tournament will prove the validity of the teachers and students.


>Evolution reflects a world view with the Earth 5 billion years old, with a
>slow aggregation of amino acids, synthesized by lightening into the first
>organisms, and slowly, over BILLIONS of years, becoming more and more
>complex, until we reach where we are today.


Fine. That may even be a VALID world view.

But without some dogmatic leap of faith, that unverifiable world
view has no rational basis for BANNING the teaching of the other
unverifiable world views.

Daniel Schuman

unread,
Mar 25, 1997, 3:00:00 AM3/25/97
to

To quote Ronald Reagan, here we go again.

Riley said,:
|=>
|=>Are you quite sure that the evolutionists would sue to
|=>ban English and Latin from science classes if Literary
|=>Criticism and Latin Translation moved into science
|=>classes demanding to be taught as a science?


Besies being a red herring, this is not a possible situation. If a new
religion were to emerge, called Rileyists, who want to put English and
Latin into science classes, then I would oppose their being in a science
class room, unless it adequately described the world as it is. However,
no one is crazy enough to advocate this, and there is no strong advocacy
group behind this position. However, the creationists do have advocates
behind their position. Thus, Evolutionists need not worry about English
and Latin into science classes, but they do need to worry about the
injection of religion -- creationism -- into science classes.


|=>Probably not--because the evolutionists do not have an
|=>irrational and superstitious FEAR of English and Latin.


This is an example of a person in a glass house throwing stones. Is a
creationist calling fear of English and latin irrational? Perhaps one's
one beliefs should be examined before making such assertions.

Riley's wrong again. Seems to be a reoccuring pattern. Better check that
feed back loop.

Daniel Schuman

unread,
Mar 25, 1997, 3:00:00 AM3/25/97
to

Riley strikes back. And wrong as ever.

He first contends the following:

|=>
|=>Any skill surely must grow from some repeatable experiment.
|=>
|=>For how could an indoctrination also be a skill unless the
|=>"skill" could be used to transform physical matter?
|=>
|=>The missionaries do attempt to indoctrinate many learned
|=>habits that are NOT skills.
|=>
|=>Apparently, the recitation of prayer is NOT a skill. For the
|=>transformation of matter following prayer is not repeatable.
|=>
|=>Furthermore, the recitation of the generations of common
|=>descent from the Single-celled creatures is NOT a skill. For,
|=>like prayer, the pool of Single-celled creatures fails
|=>to give any transformation of cows, cobras, or conger
|=>eels.


In this, of course, Riley errs. Knowledge of biology is useful for many
reasons. Besides explaining how the current species came to be, it also
explains why internal organs are analogous, why animals are similar and
have similar reactions, and so forth. Further, by dissecting a pig, we
learn about humans, because they are similar creatures, as they come from
a common ancestor. If they were all created separately by god, there
would be no such link. And no such luck.

Not only that, but there are reasons such as learning about DNA and
inheritable diseases, defects in chromosomes, why cancer happens, why do
we have an appendix, and so forth. It provides knowledge about who we
are, and how we got here, and how to keep outselves alive. This is the
skill of medicine at an extreme, or just taking care of ourselves at the
other. These are the fruits of knowledge, and you need no Garden of Eden
to discover them.

Finally, the knowledge of single cells billions of years ago are
important, because we can manpulate cells at that level, and some of those
microorganisms still exist. And affect our lives.

|=>If you are to ban the teaching of what the majority elects to
|=>teach in the science classes that the taxpayers fund, then you
|=>surely must have a NON-religious standard for the banning.

First of all, I dispute your numbers. Second, science isn't determined by
the majority of all people, it is determined by scientists. Are you one?
(I know you're a bot)


|=>And the evolutionists as yet have offered only superstitious,
|=>supernatural, and logically INcoherent tests for the speech
|=>that should be banned from science classes.


Try reading what I've written. I don't believe in supersitions,
especially that of Creationism, I don't believe in the supernatural,
especially that of the holy ghost, and my test is not about free speech,
but about accurate education. Science is not a two sided argument. There
is what is right, and what is wrong. A quark is a quark is a quark.

|=>To advance from their dark ages, the evolutionists must write
|=>into one document the words that are "religious." And then
|=>the evolutionists must show empirically that the speaking
|=>of these "religious" words has ANY measurable effect on matter whether
|=>animal, vegetable, or mineral.

Because these words have no such affect, as they are useless, why waste
our time with them? Science is for science, not for drivel.

Riley M. Sinder

unread,
Mar 25, 1997, 3:00:00 AM3/25/97
to

---------------------------------

[[The evolutionists attempt to justify banning creationist speech
by arguing that creationism is not science.

Furthermore, the evolutionists have threatened to ban any attempt
to teach economics in a science class--IF the economics
begins to call itself a "religion."

It is unclear what superstitious power the evolutionists
see in "IF the economics begins to call itself a religion."]]

-----

> >To any neutral observer, the theory of evolution is
> >only a feeble concealment of the economic theory of
> >unregulated capitalism.


Glen writes:

>Not really. Natural evolution doesn't have anything resembling the role of
>_prices_ in an economic system.

===================================

You may be right.

However, any freshman economics student can see that there
is an inverse relation between (threat of capture) and the
(quantity eaten) for any variety of food placed in a
threatening environment.

Now you may not see a Demand Curve. But any wild deer sees
the Demand Curve when eating less where there is a high
price to pay for the eating.

Brian F. King

unread,
Mar 25, 1997, 3:00:00 AM3/25/97
to

Riley M. Sinder wrote:
>
> Daniel Schuman <dsc...@emory.edu> writes:
>
> >The purpose of education is to teach people certain skills.
>
> Any skill surely must grow from some repeatable experiment.
>
> For how could an indoctrination also be a skill unless the
> "skill" could be used to transform physical matter?

Verily, since it does not transform matter via repeatable experiment,
the spoken English language is never a skill to be learned.

Perhaps you should read a dictionary to find what "skill" means.



> To advance from their dark ages, the evolutionists must write

> into one document the words that are "religious." And then

> the evolutionists must show empirically that the speaking

> of these "religious" words has ANY measurable effect on matter whether

> animal, vegetable, or mineral.

Surely, we have danced THIS dance before.
Need I repeat MYself?

mfri...@ix.netcom.com

unread,
Mar 25, 1997, 3:00:00 AM3/25/97
to

Riley says:
>
> Is it not true that the evolutionists teach that
> all life evolved from "prokaryotes" which are Single-celled
> creatures--like bacteria--lacking even a cell nucleus?
>
> If you say "Yes," then you should show where anyone--even
> with the greatest of evolutionist faith--has stressed
> out any colony of "prokaryotes" to
> make them turn into anything other than "prokaryotes."
>
> If you say "No," then perhaps you would rather play a game
> of chess instead of this evolutionism v. creationism game.
>

I reply:

Well, I talked to Christ last night, and He stated that He definitely
wants to keep creationism out of the classroom and prayer out of the
public schools, being the deceits of Satan that lure mankind from the
path God has set for us. That you realize your playing a game means
there's hope for you. I will pray for your soul tonight, futile
though it may seem to do so.

MAF

Riley M. Sinder

unread,
Mar 25, 1997, 3:00:00 AM3/25/97
to

----------------------------

[[The operation of the evolutionists' superstition about speech
is illustrated by considering the evolutionists' reaction if
some group would worship English and Latin as "religions."]]

-----

=>Are you quite sure that the evolutionists would sue to
=>ban English and Latin from science classes if Literary
=>Criticism and Latin Translation moved into science
=>classes demanding to be taught as a science?


Daniel Schuman <dsc...@emory.edu> writes:

>Besides being a red herring, this is not a possible situation.


Oh you seriously underestimate the all-encompassing strategies
of the creationists.

Since taking on the sheep's clothing of "science" did not
work, perhaps a valid optional strategy would be to take
on the sheep's clothing of "English and Latin."

>If a new
>religion were to emerge, called Linguists, who want to put English and


>Latin into science classes, then I would oppose their being in a science
>class room, unless it adequately described the world as it is.

Unfortunately, the damage of the Linguists has already been done.

Every science class is polluted with English and Latin. So all
that remains to be done is for some vociferous group to worship
publicly the great "English and Latin." Then by the
evolutionists' own Sour Lemon test the mere superstitious
"purpose to promote a religion" would suffice to make
unconstitutional the state legislature's requirement
that "English and Latin" be used in EVERY class where
evolutionism is taught.

>However,
>no one is crazy enough to advocate this, and there is no strong advocacy
>group behind this position.


Heaven forbid that anyone would be so foolish as to think
that "English and Latin" were necessary for the teaching
of evolutionism.

Perhaps you would prefer to require that evolutionism
classes be taught in "Greek"?


>However, the creationists do have advocates
>behind their position.

Yes. And there are many in America who advocate that "English and Latin"
be used in every class in which evolutionism is taught.


>Thus, Evolutionists need not worry about English
>and Latin into science classes, but they do need to worry about the
>injection of religion -- creationism -- into science classes.


Pure hilarious superstition!

It is only the evolutionists' superstitious fear of
certain speech-sounds that creates the worry.

How does a mere "purpose to promote a religion" have any
effect on the physical universe?

Riley M. Sinder

unread,
Mar 25, 1997, 3:00:00 AM3/25/97
to

----------------------------------

[[What would be an objective standard for deciding what
part of evolutionism should be banned and what part
of creationism should be banned from teaching in
science class?]]

-----

>> >The purpose of education is to teach people certain skills.

-----

>> Any skill surely must grow from some repeatable experiment.

>> For how could an indoctrination also be a skill unless the
>> "skill" could be used to transform physical matter?

"Brian F. King" <bri...@ncinter.net> writes:

>Verily, since it does not transform matter via repeatable experiment,
>the spoken English language is never a skill to be learned.


No doubt you will change your mind when you discover
that speaking ANY language alters the vibrational states
of air molecules.

Nevertheless, your statement could be right if
you refer only to that superstitious
art of speaking in a vacuum.

Riley M. Sinder

unread,
Mar 25, 1997, 3:00:00 AM3/25/97
to

----------------------------

[[Any "useful skill" is based on a repeatable experiment.

What justification is there for making any teaching in
science class that is NOT a useful skill?]]

-----

=>Apparently, the recitation of prayer is NOT a useful skill. For the


=>transformation of matter following prayer is not repeatable.

=>Furthermore, the recitation of the generations of common
=>descent from the Single-celled creatures is NOT a skill. For,
=>like prayer, the pool of Single-celled creatures fails
=>to give any transformation of cows, cobras, or conger
=>eels.


Daniel Schuman <dsc...@emory.edu> writes:

>In this, you err. Knowledge of biology is useful for many
>reasons.


To any neutral observer, it would be useful to learn the
parts of evolution theory--or creationism theory--that summarize
a repeatable experiment.

Thus, it would be useful to learn that finches evolve ONLY
to finches. And bacteria evolve ONLY to bacteria.

>Besides explaining how the current species came to be, it also
>explains why internal organs are analogous,


Why certainly it is useful to learn that the eye of the fly
and the eye of the guy are analogous in detecting the
motion of nearby physical objects when illuminated by
a proper color-mix of light.

But the eye of the fly and the eye of the guy do not
therefore arise from common ancestry.


>why animals are similar and
>have similar reactions, and so forth. Further, by dissecting a pig, we
>learn about humans, because they are similar creatures, as they come from
>a common ancestor.


If you believe that dissecting a 1957 Chevy and a 1957 Ford
reveals common ancestry merely because of analogous
function, then you will readily make the leap of faith
of the evolutionists. In the words of the evolutionist,
"You have the gift to be grift!"

>If they were all created separately by god, there
>would be no such link. And no such luck.


That may be. But the evolutionists have not demonstrated that
the current menagerie could evolve from the Adams and Eves
in whatever pool you want to postulate of Single-celled creatures.

Even more telling, the evolutionists own theory asserts
that the current menagerie would have evolved from
God's separate creations.

mvi...@ix.netcom.com

unread,
Mar 25, 1997, 3:00:00 AM3/25/97
to

mfri...@ix.netcom.com wrote:
>
> Well, I talked to Christ last night, and He stated that He definitely
> wants to keep creationism out of the classroom and prayer out of the
> public schools, being the deceits of Satan that lure mankind from the
> path God has set for us. That you realize your playing a game means
> there's hope for you. I will pray for your soul tonight, futile
> though it may seem to do so.
>
> MAF
****************
I was taught theory of evolution in a public school.
As far as I remember, God has created those creatures we call now
monkeys
with a single purpose to make human beings later on.
It worked, mostly.
Most "monkeys" started to work and became humans, as theory states.
Some monkeys decided not to work. They have evolutionized into
porch monkeys.
--------------
Michael Vilkin

It is loading more messages.
0 new messages